United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
KENDELL M. HOUZE, Petitioner,
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
F. Cox United States District Judge.
M. Houze, a Michigan state prisoner, has filed a pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. He challenges his first-degree criminal sexual
conduct conviction. See Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.520b. Now before the Court is Respondent's Motion to
was charged in Wayne County Circuit Court with three counts
of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and six counts of
third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Petitioner pleaded
guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct
pursuant to a plea agreement providing for the dismissal of
the remaining charges and a sentence of ten to twenty years.
On July 26, 2017, the trial court sentenced Petitioner in
accordance with the plea agreement to ten to twenty
filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan
Court of Appeals claiming that the trial court erred in
denying his motion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea. The
Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal “for
lack of merit in the grounds presented.” People v.
Houze, No. 342151 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2018).
Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the
Michigan Supreme Court arguing that his pre-sentence
investigation report contained errors. The Michigan Supreme
Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Houze, 503
Mich. 860 (Sept. 12, 2018).
October 12, 2018, Petitioner filed the pending habeas
petition. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground that it contains only unexhausted claims.
raises four claims in his habeas petition:
I. The trial court abused its discretion in deciding
II. Ineffective assistance of counsel.
III. Petitioner's guilt was not supported by sufficient
evidence and his plea therefore was based upon an
insufficient factual basis.
IV. Petitioner's sentence is unreasonable and
See Pet. at 1-3, ECF No. 1, Pg. ID 1-3.
argues that the petition contains only unexhausted claims. A
prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. §2254 must first exhaust all state court
remedies. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 845 (1999) (“[S]tate prisoners must give the state
courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional
issues by invoking one complete round of the State's
established appellate review process”). To exhaust
state court remedies, a claim must be fairly presented
“to every level of the state courts in one full
round.” Ambrose v. Romanowski, 621 Fed.
App'x 808, 814 (6th Cir. 2015). See also Wagner v.
Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 418 (6th Cir. 2009) (“For a
claim to be reviewable at the federal level, each claim must