United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
(3) DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Brown (“Petitioner”) filed this habeas case under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner pled guilty in the
Marquette Circuit Court to larceny from a person, MICH. COMP.
LAWS § 750.357, and to being a fourth-time habitual
felony offender. He was sentenced to ten to thirty years'
imprisonment. The petition raises a single claim:
Petitioner' sentence was disproportionate and
unreasonable in violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. The claim is without merit. The Court
will deny the petition, and it will also deny a certificate
of appealability and permission to appeal in forma pauperis.
was originally charged with armed robbery, assault with
intent to do great bodily harm, and larceny from a person.
facts of this case involved Petitioner and his co-defendant
meeting Cassandra Koval under the guise of completing a drug
transaction. When they met with Koval, Petitioner pulled out
a gun and demanded money. He obtained $185.00, and then
kicked Koval in the stomach. Dkt. 10-3, at 19.
26, 2017, Petitioner pled no contest to larceny from a person
and with being a fourth-time habitual felony offender
pursuant to an agreement that dismissed the other charges.
Dkt. 10-2. There was no sentence agreement.
21, 2017, he was sentenced to serve ten to thirty years in
prison. Dkt. 10-3, at 22.
filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. His application raised one claim:
I. Defendant-Appellant Eric Brown's sentence was
disproportionate and unreasonable, in violation of U.S.
Const, Ams V, VIII, XIV; Const 1963, art 1, § 17.
Michigan Court of Appeals denied the application for leave to
appeal “for lack of merit in the grounds
presented.” People v. Brown, No. 340836 (Mich.
Ct. App. December 20, 2017). Petitioner s filed an
application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court
which was denied by standard form order. People v.
Brown, 915 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. 2018) (Table).
Standard of Review
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) curtails a federal court's
review of constitutional claims raised by a state prisoner in
a habeas action if the claims were adjudicated on the merits
by the state courts. Relief is barred under this section
unless the state court adjudication was “contrary
to” or resulted in an “unreasonable application
of” clearly established Supreme Court law.
2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a guard
against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice
systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction
through appeal. . . . As a condition for obtaining habeas
corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that
the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in
federal court was so lacking in justification that there was
an error well understood and comprehended in existing law
beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.86, 103 (2011).