United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Brantley, (“petitioner”), confined at the Earnest
C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights,
Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed
pro se, petitioner challenges his plea-based
convictions of armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.529, and possession of a firearm during the commission of
a felony (felony firearm), § 750.227b. For the reasons
stated below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
was convicted following the entry of a guilty plea in the
Wayne County Circuit Court.
conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Michigan Court of
Appeals when leave to appeal was denied “for lack of
merit in the grounds presented.” People v.
Brantley, No. 342119, (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2018). On
May 14, 2018, petitioner signed and filed an application for
leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court which was
rejected, because it was filed beyond the May 11, 2018
deadline, and therefore, was untimely. ECF 7-10, PageID.222.
27, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus with this Court.
raises the following four grounds in seeking relief:
I. The trial court abused it's (sic) discretion in
denying Mr. Brantley's motion to withdraw his plea.
II. Mr. Brantley should be allowed to withdraw his plea
because he is actually not guilty and was denied effective
assistance of counsel at his plea proceeding[.]
III. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied appellant due
process right to submit a standard four brief where the court
entered its' order about ten (47) days after
appellant's application for leave to appeal was filed.
IV. Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel when
trial counsel failed to object to defendant's arrest.
instant petition must be dismissed because none of the claims
have been properly exhausted with the state courts.
general rule, a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief
must first exhaust his available state court remedies before
raising a claim in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)
and (c); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-78
(1971); Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193, 1195 (6th
Cir. 1995). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a
state prisoner shall not be granted unless the petitioner has
exhausted his available state court remedies, there is an
absence of available state corrective process, or
circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to
protect the petitioner's rights. See Turner v.
Bagley,401 F.3d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 2005). Federal
district courts must dismiss habeas petitions which contain
unexhausted claims. Pliler v. Ford,542 U.S. 225,