United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner
Curtis Rouse filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rouse is a state prisoner in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to
convictions for armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.529, and possession of a firearm while committing a
felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. He argues that his
conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional
rights because: trial counsel was ineffective, the trial
court unlawfully assessed court costs and attorney fees, and
he was not given the full benefit of his plea bargain.
Respondent argues that the claims are meritless. The Court
denies the petition.
I.
Background
Rouse's
convictions arise from the robbery of Joshua White in the
City of Inkster on December 11, 2012. Rouse was charged in
Wayne County Circuit Court as a fourth habitual offender with
armed robbery, felony firearm ~ second offense, and being a
felon in possession of a firearm. On July 15, 2013, he
pleaded guilty to armed robbery and felony firearm. In
exchange for the plea, the prosecutor's office dismissed
the felon-in-possession charge, and the fourth habitual
offender notice of enhancement. The plea was also subject to
an agreement allowed by state law that Rouse would be
sentenced to seven to twenty years imprisonment for the armed
robbery conviction, and five years for the felony firearm
conviction. See People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276, 505
N.W.2d 208 (1993) (permitting a defendant to enter a guilty
plea in reliance on the trial court's initial evaluation
as to the appropriate sentence, subject to the
defendant's right to withdraw his plea if the sentence
actually imposed exceeds the preliminary evaluation). On July
29, 2013, Rouse was sentenced in accordance with the
Cobbs agreement.
Rouse
moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his
attorney was ineffective, the trial court improperly assessed
court costs and attorney fees, and he was not granted the
full benefit of his plea bargain. The trial court denied the
motion. See 8/22/2014 Op. & Ord., ECF No. 8-5,
Pg. ID 200-11.
Rouse
filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan
Court of Appeals. The court of appeals denied leave to appeal
"for lack of merit in the grounds presented."
People v. Rouse, No. 323567 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 10,
2015). The Michigan Supreme Court also denied leave to
appeal. People v. Rouse, 500 Mich. 852 (Mich. Sept.
6, 2016).
Rouse
then filed the pending habeas corpus petition, raising these
claims:
I. Mr. Rouse was deprived of his Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment constitutional rights to due process and his Sixth
Amendment constitutional right to effective assistance of
counsel when counsel failed to investigate his case.
II. Mr. Rouse was deprived of his Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment constitutional rights of due process when he was
unlawfully assessed court costs and attorney fees.
III. Mr. Rouse was deprived of his Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment constitutional rights of due process when he was
not granted his full bargain.
II.
Standard
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
...