United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Eugene Stroh, currently in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He
challenges the sentences imposed for his convictions for
first-degree home invasion, fleeing and eluding, restricting
and obstructing a police officer, and malicious destruction
of property. It is apparent from the face of the petition
that habeas relief is not warranted. Therefore, the Court
denies the petition. The Court also denies a certificate of
pleaded guilty in St. Clair County Circuit Court to
first-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a,
fleeing and eluding a police officer, Mich. Comp. Laws §
257.602a, restricting and obstructing a police officer, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.8 Id., and malicious destruction of
property, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a. On July 23, 2012,
he was sentenced as a third habitual offender to 10 to 20
years imprisonment for the home invasion and fleeing and
eluding a police officer convictions, 4 to 8 years for the
restricting and obstructing a police officer convictions, and
to time served for the malicious destruction of property
2015, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in
the trial court, which the trial court denied on September 8,
2016. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's
delayed application for leave to appeal. People v.
Stroh, No. 335564 (Mich. Ct. App. March 9, 2017). On
December 27, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court also denied
leave to appeal. People v. Stroh, 501 Mich. 947
(Mich. Dec. 27, 2017).
then filed this habeas corpus petition. He argues for habeas
corpus relief on the ground that the trial court judge exceed
his sentencing guidelines.
the filing of a habeas corpus petition, the court must
promptly examine the petition to determine "if it
plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. If
the court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief, the court shall summarily dismiss the petition.
McFarlandv. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994)
("Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any
habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its
face"). The habeas petition does not present grounds
which may establish the violation of a federal constitutional
right. The petition will be dismissed.
of this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Under the
AEDPA, a state prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus only if he can show that the state court's
adjudication of his claims -
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
state court's determination that a claim lacks merit
precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded
jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state
court's decision." Harrington v. Richter,562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). To obtain habeas relief in federal
court, a state prisoner is required to show that the state
court's rejection of his claim "was so lacking in
justification that there was an error well understood ...