United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION & ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,
& DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Michigan prisoner Billy Edward Reed
(“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to third-degree
fleeing and eluding a police officer, Mich. Comp. Laws §
257.602(A)(3)(a), in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court in
2015 and was sentenced, as a fourth habitual offender, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 769.12, to four to 15 years imprisonment in
2016. In his petition, he raises a claim concerning the
validity of his plea and the effectiveness of defense
counsel. For the reasons set forth, the Court denies the
habeas petition. The Court also denies a certificate of
appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal.
Facts and Procedural History
conviction arises from a high-speed police chase that ensued
when he refused to pull over for a marked police car
attempting to stop him on April 2, 2015 in Kalamazoo County,
Michigan. On December 15, 2015, the day set for trial,
Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree
fleeing and eluding as a fourth habitual offender in exchange
for the dismissal of an additional resisting arrest charge
and an agreement that the prosecutor would not pursue an
absconding charge (based upon Petitioner's failure to
appear at scheduled proceedings). Prior to sentencing,
Petitioner moved to withdraw his plea. On January 19, 2016,
the trial court conducted a hearing on that motion, denied
it, and sentenced Petitioner, as a fourth habitual offender,
to four to 15 years imprisonment.
sentencing, Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave
to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals asserting that
his plea was involuntary because trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to seek discovery and prepare for his
case and pressuring him to accept the plea. The court denied
the application “for lack of merit in the grounds
presented.” People v. Reed, No. 334005 (Mich.
Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2016 (Sept. 12, 2016). Petitioner filed an
application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme
Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v.
Reed, 500 Mich. 961, 892 N.W.2d 366 (2017).
thereafter filed his federal habeas petition raising the same
claim presented to the state courts for direct appeal of his
conviction. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition
contending that it should be denied for lack of merit.
Standard of Review
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241
et seq., sets forth the standard of review that
federal courts must use when considering habeas petitions
brought by prisoners challenging their state court
convictions. The AEDPA provides in relevant part:
application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall
not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated
on the merits in State court proceedings unless the
adjudication of the claim--
(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) (1996).
state court's decision is ‘contrary to' . . .
clearly established law if it ‘applies a rule that
contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court
cases]' or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are
materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme]
Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from
[that] precedent.'” Mitchell v. Esparza,
540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) ...