United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jacob M. Perez, Petitioner,
Connie Horton,  Respondent,
Elizabeth A. Stafford, United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS  AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
M. Perez (“Petitioner”) is incarcerated at the
Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. He has
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. In his pro se
application, Perez challenges his conviction for
second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317. He
also challenges his sentence as a second felony habitual
offender under Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.10. For the
reasons stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is DENIED .
was convicted following a jury trial in the Genesee County
Circuit Court. This Court “refers verbatim to the
relevant facts relied upon by the Michigan Court of Appeals,
facts which are presumed correct on habeas review.”
Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)).
This case arises from the murder of Angela Vance in the home
she shared with defendant in Flint. At trial, the prosecution
sought, under MCL 768.27b, to introduce evidence of two prior
incidents of domestic violence by defendant against Vance.
Defense counsel objected and also moved to suppress
statements that defendant made to a sheriff's deputy at
the scene of the murder. The trial court admitted tapes of
911 calls concerning the previous incidents of domestic
abuse, admitted the testimony of the police officers who
responded to the previous incidents, and denied
defendant's motion to suppress the challenged statements.
People v. Perez, No. 321016, 2015 WL 4599503, at *1
(Mich. Ct. App. July 30, 2015) (per curiam).
Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's
conviction. Id., lv. den. 499 Mich. 858,
873 N.W.2d 580 (2016).
this Court, Perez seeks habeas relief on the following
I. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting
inflammatory evidence of prior assaults.
II. The trial court reversibly erred in denying the defense
motion [sic] to suppress defendant-appellant's statements
in response to questioning after he was taken into custody
before he was advised of his Miranda rights.
Dkt. No. 1, p. 3 (Pg. ID 3).
Standard of Review
U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, imposes the ...