Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jamison v. Woods

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 31, 2018

DOUGLAS W. JAMISON, Petitioner,
v.
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

          ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is 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.

         The 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This 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 systems.
. . .
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).

         Following 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 opinion.

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner 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.

         The 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 direct appeal.

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.