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.

Stroh v. Campbell

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

July 9, 2018

EUGENE STROH, Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner 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 appealability.

         I. Background

         Petitioner 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 conviction.

         In 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).

         Petitioner then filed this habeas corpus petition. He argues for habeas corpus relief on the ground that the trial court judge exceed his sentencing guidelines.

         II. Discussion

         A.

         Upon 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.

         Review 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; or
(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).

         "[A] 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 ...


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.