United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
prisoner Shelby Clarmont (“Petitioner”) filed
this habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF
No. 1.) Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit
armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529. He raises a
single, sentencing-related claim for habeas corpus relief.
after the filing of a habeas petition, the court must
undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine
whether “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
United States Courts, Rules Governing 2254 Cases, Rule 4
(2010); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after
preliminary consideration, the court determines that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court may summarily
dismiss the petition. United States Courts, Rules Governing
2254 Cases, Rule 4 (2010); 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Allen
v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (District
courts have a duty to “screen out” petitions that
lack merit on their face.). A dismissal under Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing 2254 Cases includes those petitions which
raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing
factual allegations which are palpably incredible or false.
Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir.
1999). After undertaking this review, the court concludes
that the habeas petition lacks merit and will be denied.
was charged in Kent County Circuit Court with armed robbery
and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. On June 11, 2018, he
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.529, in exchange for the dismissal of
the armed robbery charge and a fourth habitual offender
10, 2018, Petitioner was sentenced to 108 months to 50 years
imprisonment. He filed an application for leave to appeal in
the Michigan Court of Appeals arguing that his sentence was
based upon incorrectly scored guidelines, violated the
principle of proportionality, and conflicted with People
v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Mich. 2015). The Michigan
Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v.
Clarmont, No. 347035 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2019). The
Michigan Supreme Court also denied leave to appeal.
People v. Clarmont, 504 Mich. 903, 903 (2019).
then filed this habeas corpus petition. (ECF No. 1.) He
raises the same sentencing-related claim raised on direct
The trial court erred in imposing a sentence which was based
on incorrectly scored guidelines and was a departure from
applicable advisory guidelines where the sentence violates
the principle of proportionality as set forth by People
v. Milbourn and is unreasonable in violation of
People v. Lockridge[, ] thereby entitling the
defendant-appellant to resentencing within the correctly
(ECF No. 1, PageID.3, 6-18.)
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, imposes the following
standard of review for habeas cases:
An 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 ...