United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DOUGLAS W. JAMISON, Petitioner,
JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas case filed by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner Douglas W. Jamison was convicted of
manufacturing marijuana, Mich. Comp. Laws §
333.7401(2)(d)(iii), felon in possession of a firearm, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.224f, and two counts of possessing a
firearm during the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 750.227b, after a jury trial in the Bay County,
Michigan Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced Petitioner
as a fourth habitual felony offender to concurrent terms of
58-to-180 months imprisonment for the controlled substance
conviction, 58-to-300 months imprisonment for the felon in
possession of a firearm conviction, and two consecutive
2-year terms for the felony-firearm convictions.
petition raises eight claims: (1) there was insufficient
evidence presented at trial to support Petitioner's
convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and
commission of a felony with a firearm; (2) Petitioner was
denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial; (3) one
of Petitioner's felony-firearm convictions must be
vacated because the predicate felony was dismissed by the
prosecutor; (4) Petitioner's felony-firearm conviction
should be served concurrently with his manufacture of
marijuana conviction; (5) trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to advise Petitioner to accept a plea bargain; (6)
Petitioner's right to a speedy trial was violated; (7)
the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments;
and (8) Petitioner's appellate counsel was ineffective
for failing to raise the above fifth, sixth, and seventh
claims on direct appeal. The court will deny the petition
because Petitioner's claims are without merit or barred
by his state court procedural defaults.
court recites verbatim the relevant facts relied upon by the
Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on
habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See
Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):
In August 2009, two witnesses observed defendant shooting a
firearm outside the house defendant shared with his mother in
Williams Township. During a subsequent search of the
residence, officers found 65 firearms in a locked room, as
well as marijuana growing in a utility shed. Although 32
marijuana plants were seized, only 18 had viable root
. . .
Defendant contends that he lived in a motor home on the
premises, but there was evidence that he lived in the house.
People v. Jamison, 2012 WL 1890094, at *2 (Mich. Ct.
App. May 22, 2012) (footnotes omitted).
his conviction and sentence, Petitioner filed a claim of
appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. His appellate
counsel filed a brief on appeal, raising the following four
claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support
Petitioner's convictions of felon in possession of a
firearm and felony firearm and Petitioner was denied due
process of law and is entitled to reversal of these
convictions; (2) Petitioner was denied a fair trial and
defense trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in
failing to move for a mistrial after a deputy sheriff
testified that Petitioner reported being recently released
from prison; (3) One of Petitioner's convictions for
felony firearm must be reversed for insufficient evidence as
the Government dismissed the charge of manufacturing of 5-45
kilograms of marijuana on which it was predicated; and (4)
Petitioner's judgment of sentence must be amended to
permit him to serve his felony firearm sentence concurrent
with his sentence for manufacture of marijuana. Id.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished
then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan
Supreme Court, raising the same claims he raised in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Supreme Court denied
the application because it was “not persuaded that the
questions presented should be reviewed.” People v.
Jamison, 820 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. 2012) (Table).
then filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial
court under Michigan Court Rule 6.501. The motion raised the
following five claims:
I. Defendant's convictions should be reversed and the
plea offer reinstated where defendant would have accepted a
plea deal offered by the prosecutor were it not for his
reliance on his trial attorney's erroneous advice.
II. Defendant is entitled to resentencing because offense
variables nine and nineteen were incorrectly scored,
resulting in an inappropriately inflated sentencing
guidelines range. Defendant's state and federal
constitutional due process rights to be sentenced based on
accurate information were thus denied. Further, trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to the
incorrect scoring of OV 19.
III. Defendant's convictions must be vacated and the
charges dismissed with prejudice where his state and federal
constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated where
almost nineteen months lapsed between arrest and trial due to
delays attributable to the state. Trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to move for a dismissal of all
charges with prejudice.
IV. The prosecutor denied defendant his state and federal
constitutional rights to a fair trial by arguing facts not in
evidence in his closing arguments. Trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to object.
V. The defendant was denied his state and federal
constitutional rights to effective assistance of appellate
counsel where counsel failed to raise the issues being
presented in the present motion for relief from judgment on
direct appeal in the defendant's appeal of right.
trial court denied the motion by opinion and order dated
March 20, 2014. The court found that Petitioner failed to
demonstrate “good cause” or “actual
prejudice” as required by Michigan Court Rule
6.508(D)(3) to excuse his failure to raise his claims on
appealed this decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The
Michigan Court of Appeals denied the application for leave to
appeal “for failure to establish entitlement to relief
under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D).” People v.
Jamison, No. 323391 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2014).
appealed this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. The
Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court
for resentencing because of an error in the scoring of the
sentencing guidelines, but it denied relief with respect to
Petitioner's other ...