UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS SMITH, #229692,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11099

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

PAUL KLEE,

Respondent.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,

AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

I. INTRODUCTION

Michigan prisoner Thomas Smith (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for

a writ of habeas corpus asserting that he is being held in violation of his

constitutional rights. Petitioner pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm,

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.224f, in the Wayne County Circuit Court and was

sentenced, as a fourth habitual offender, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 769.12, to 2 years

6 months to 10 years imprisonment in 2013. In his pleadings, he raises claims

concerning an amendment to his judgment of sentence, the state trial court’s

jurisdiction, and the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. For the reasons

stated herein, the Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 453
also denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner’s conviction arises from his status as a felon and his improper

possession of firearms on July 16, 2013 in Garden City, Michigan. On November

8, 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and being a

fourth habitual offender in exchange for the dismissal of a felony firearm, second

offense, charge and a sentencing agreement of 2 years 6 months to 10 years

imprisonment. On November 22, 2013, the trial court sentenced him to 2 years 6

months to 10 years imprisonment in accordance with the plea bargain and issued

a judgment of sentence reflecting that sentence. On January 8, 2014, the trial

court issued an amended judgment of sentence to reflect Petitioner’s fourth

habitual offender status and to correct another typographical error.

In May, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to correct an invalid sentence with the

state trial court asserting that the court improperly amended his judgment of

sentence in violation of his due process rights. Following a hearing, the trial court

denied the motion finding that it acted within its discretion in correcting the

judgment of sentence without a hearing because the correction was clerical, not

substantive, in nature. The court noted that the amendment accurately reflected

2

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 454
the imposed sentence and Petitioner’s fourth habitual offender status. People v.

Smith, No. 13-007327-01-FH (Wayne Co. Cir. Ct. June 6, 2014). Petitioner filed

a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals

raising the same due process claim, as well as a double jeopardy claim, contesting

the amendment to the judgment of sentence. The court denied the application for

lack of merit in the grounds presented. People v. Smith, No. 322204 (Mich. Ct.

App. July 24, 2014). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal with the

Michigan Supreme Court raising the same two sentencing claims, as well as an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court denied leave to appeal in a

standard order. People v. Smith, 497 Mich. 955, 858 N.W.2d 437 (2015).

Petitioner thereafter filed his federal habeas petition. He raises the following

claims as grounds for relief:

I. He is entitled to resentencing where the court amended the

judgment of sentence almost four months after the sentencing

date to reflect an habitual 4th status. This deprived him of his

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights of due

process.

II. He is entitled to resentencing where the court amended the

judgment of sentence almost four months after the sentencing

date to reflect an habitual 4th status thus depriving him of his

Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to be free from

double jeopardy.

III. The trial court did not have lawful jurisdiction to try or sentence

him.

3

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 455
IV. Trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective in violation

of his Sixth Amendment rights.

Respondent has filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied

because the last two claims are unexhausted and all of the claims lack merit. 

Petitioner has filed a reply to that answer reiterating that he is entitled to relief.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal law 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 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 in the State court proceedings.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

“A 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) (per curiam)

4

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 4 of 20 Pg ID 456
(quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)); see also Bell v. Cone,

535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002).

“[T]he ‘unreasonable application’ prong of § 2254(d)(1) permits a federal

habeas court to ‘grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing

legal principle from [the Supreme] Court but unreasonably applies that principle to

the facts of petitioner’s case.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003) (quoting

Williams, 529 U.S. at 413); see also Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. However, “[i]n order for

a federal court find a state court’s application of [Supreme Court] precedent

‘unreasonable,’ the state court’s decision must have been more than incorrect or

erroneous. The state court’s application must have been ‘objectively

unreasonable.’” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (citations omitted); see also Williams,

529 U.S. at 409. “AEDPA thus imposes a ‘highly deferential standard for

evaluating state-court rulings,’ and ‘demands that state-court decisions be given

the benefit of the doubt.’” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (quoting Lindh,

521 U.S. at 333, n. 7; Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)).

A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit “precludes federal

habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of

the state court's decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The Supreme Court has

5

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 5 of 20 Pg ID 457
emphasized “that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's

contrary conclusion was unreasonable.” Id. (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.

63, 75 (2003)). Pursuant to § 2254(d), “a habeas court must determine what

arguments or theories supported or ... could have supported, the state court's

decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could

disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a

prior decision" of the Supreme Court. Id. Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief in

federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's rejection of his claim

"was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and

comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” 

Id; see also White v. Woodall, _ U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014). Federal

judges “are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their

decisions only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong.” 

Woods v. Donald, _ U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 1372, 1376 (2015). A habeas petitioner

cannot prevail as long as it is within the “realm of possibility” that fairminded jurists

could find the state court decision to be reasonable. Woods v. Etherton, _ U.S. _,

136 S. Ct. 1149, 1152 (2016).

Section 2254(d)(1) limits a federal habeas court’s review to a determination

of whether the state court’s decision comports with clearly established federal law

6

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 6 of 20 Pg ID 458
as determined by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its

decision. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412; see also Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S.

111, 122 (2009) (noting that the Supreme Court “has held on numerous occasions

that it is not ‘an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law’ for a

state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely

established by this Court”) (quoting Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125-26

(2008) (per curiam)); Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 71-72. Section 2254(d) “does not

require a state court to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have

been ‘adjudicated on the merits.’” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 100. Furthermore, it

“does not require citation of [Supreme Court] cases–indeed, it does not even

require awareness of [Supreme Court] cases, so long as neither the reasoning nor

the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” Early v. Packer, 537 U.S.

3, 8 (2002); see also Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 16. While the requirements of “clearly

established law” are to be determined by Supreme Court precedent, the decisions

of lower federal courts may be useful in assessing the reasonableness of the state

court’s decision. Stewart v. Erwin, 503 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing

Williams v. Bowersox, 340 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2003)); Dickens v. Jones, 203

F. Supp. 354, 359 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

A state court’s factual determinations are presumed correct on federal

7

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 7 of 20 Pg ID 459
habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A petitioner may rebut this

presumption with clear and convincing evidence. Warren v. Smith, 161 F.3d 358,

360-61 (6th Cir. 1998). Lastly, habeas review is “limited to the record that was

before the state court.” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Exhaustion

As an initial matter, Respondent contends that Petitioner has not properly

exhausted his jurisdiction and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel

claims in the state courts. A prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. §2254 must first exhaust all state remedies. See O'Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) ("state prisoners must give the state courts

one full fair opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one

complete round of the State's established appellate review process); Rust v. Zent,

17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a

Michigan prisoner must present each issue to both the Michigan Court of Appeals

and the Michigan Supreme Court. See Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998

(E.D. Mich. 1999); see also Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). 

The claims must be “fairly presented” to those courts, meaning that the petitioner

must have asserted both the factual and legal bases for the claims. McMeans v.

8

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 8 of 20 Pg ID 460
Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 681 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Williams v. Anderson, 460

F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing McMeans). The petitioner must also present

the claims to the state courts as federal constitutional issues. Koontz v. Glossa,

731 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). The burden is on the petitioner to prove

exhaustion. Rust, 17 F.3d at 160.

In this case, Petitioner did not present his jurisdiction claim to the state courts

at all and first presented his ineffective assistance of counsel claims to the state

courts in seeking leave to appeal before the Michigan Supreme Court on direct

appeal. Presenting new issues for the first time before a state supreme court on

discretionary review, however, does not amount to a “fair presentation” of those

claims to the state courts for exhaustion purposes. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S.

346, 351 (1989). Consequently, Petitioner has not properly exhausted his

jurisdiction and ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the state courts such

that his habeas petition is subject to dismissal as a mixed petition containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims.

The Court, however, declines to dismiss the habeas petition on such a basis. 

While the exhaustion requirement is strictly enforced, it is not a jurisdictional

prerequisite for bringing a habeas petition. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129,

134-35 (1987); Rockwell v. Yukins, 217 F.3d 421, 423 (6th Cir. 2000). For

9

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 9 of 20 Pg ID 461
example, an unexhausted claim may be addressed if the pursuit of state court

remedies would be futile, Witzke v. Withrow, 702 F. Supp. 1338, 1348 (W.D. Mich.

1988), or if the unexhausted claim is meritless such that addressing it would be

efficient and not offend federal-state comity. Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418, 1422

(6th Cir. 1987); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (habeas petition may be denied

on the merits despite the failure to exhaust state court remedies). The Court finds

that the interests of justice would be best served by adjudicating these claims

because further exhaustion in the state courts is likely to be futile and relief on the

claims may be denied despite the lack of exhaustion.

B. Amendment to the Judgment of Sentence Claims

Petitioner first asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because the trial

court’s amendment of the judgment of sentence to reflect his fourth habitual

offender status, done four months after sentencing and without a hearing, violated

his due process rights and his right to be free from double jeopardy. Respondent

contends that these claims lack merit.

In this case, the state trial court denied Petitioner’s resentencing motion

because the amendment to the judgment of sentence was clerical, not substantive,

in nature and it accurately reflected the imposed and agreed-upon sentence. The

Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds

10

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 10 of 20 Pg ID 462
presented and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in a standard

order.

The state courts’ decisions are neither contrary to Supreme Court precedent

nor an unreasonable application of federal law or the facts.1

 Matters of state

procedure and sentencing are generally state law issues which do not justify

federal habeas relief. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81 (1977); see also

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (“it is not the province of a federal

habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions”). 

Such is the case here where the trial court merely amended the judgment of

sentence to correct a clerical error. An error in state procedure or sentencing does

not rise to the level of a federal constitutional claim warranting habeas relief

“unless the error renders the proceeding so fundamentally unfair as to deprive the

petitioner of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.” McAdoo v. Elo, 365

F.3d 487, 494 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 69-70).

Petitioner fails to establish a due process violation. The state court record

demonstrates that he was notified of the fourth habitual offender charge and

acknowledged that he was a fourth habitual offender at the time of his plea. His

imposed sentence of 2 years 6 months to 10 years imprisonment also reflected his

1

The Court notes that it would reach the same result under a de novo

standard of review.

11

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 11 of 20 Pg ID 463
fourth habitual offender status. His original judgment of sentence, however, failed

to include his habitual offender designation. Consequently, the trial court amended

the judgment of sentence to include his status as a fourth habitual offender in

accordance with his plea bargain and sentence. The trial court did not impose a

new charge or sentence or any additional punishment. The amendment to the

judgment of sentence was clerical, not substantive, in nature and was not

fundamentally unfair. No due process violation occurred. See, e.g., Robertson v.

McKee, No. 09-CV-14675, 2012 WL 263099, *4-5 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2012)

(Borman, J.), adopting magistrate judge’s report, 2011 WL 7112235, *12 (E.D.

Mich. June 20, 2011), denying relief on similar claim and ruling that no

constitutional violation occurred when the state trial court corrected a clerical

mistake by amending the petitioner’s judgment of sentence to reflect his habitual

offender status).

Petitioner also fails to establish a double jeopardy violation. The Double

Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: “No person... shall...be subject

for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. Amend.

V. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides three basic protections: “[It] protects

against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects

against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects

12

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 12 of 20 Pg ID 464
against multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395

U.S. 711, 717 (1969) (footnotes omitted). “These protections stem from the

underlying premise that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the

same offense.” Shiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 229 (1994) (citing United States v.

Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 339 (1975)).

The record in this case clearly shows that Petitioner was not punished twice

for the same offense. Rather, the judgment of sentence was amended to

accurately reflect his status as a fourth habitual offender and to comport with his

plea bargain. His original sentence of 2 years 6 months to 10 years imprisonment

remained the same. No double jeopardy violation occurred. See Jones v. Winn,

No. 15-CV-11249, 2016 WL 6696048, *7 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2016) (Drain, J.)

(denying habeas relief on double jeopardy claim challenging amended judgment

of sentence which was changed to correct clerical error on consecutive

sentencing); Robertson, supra, 2012 WL 263099, adopting magistrate judge’s

report, 2011 WL 7112235 at *12 (“... because the amended judgment of sentence

merely corrected a clerical error but did not alter the actual term of imprisonment,

the trial court’s action neither deprived petitioner of a fair sentencing proceeding

nor violated the Double Jeopardy Clause”). Petitioner fails to establish that the trial

court’s conduct in amending the judgment of sentence violated his constitutional

13

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 13 of 20 Pg ID 465
rights. Habeas relief is not warranted on these claims.

C. Jurisdiction Claim

Petitioner next asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because the trial

court lacked jurisdiction to try and sentence him. Petitioner cites perceived

deficiencies in the criminal complaint, warrant, and arraignment in support of this

claim. Respondent contends that this unexhausted claim lacks merit. Because

this claim was not raised in the state courts and is unexhausted, see discussion

supra, it has not been adjudicated on the merits in the state courts and is subject

to de novo review. See Dando v. Yukins, 461 F.3d 791, 796 (6th Cir. 2006).

With such a standard in mind, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to

relief on this claim because it is not cognizable upon habeas review. The

determination of whether a particular state court is vested with jurisdiction under

state law and is the proper venue to hear a criminal case is a “function of the state

courts, not the federal judiciary.” Wills v. Egeler, 532 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir.

1976); see also Hamby-Bey v. Bergh, No. 08-CV-13284, 2008 WL 3286227, *2

(E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2008) (Battani, J.); Chandler v. Curtis, No. 05-CV-72608-DT,

2005 WL 1640083, *2 (E.D. Mich. July 13, 2005) (Cohn, J.); Groke v. Trombley,

No. 01-CV-10045-BC, 2003 WL 1798109, *5 (E.D. Mich. April 1, 2003) (Lawson,

J.); accord Write v. Angelone, 151 F.3d 151, 157-58 (4th Cir. 1998); Rhode v.

14

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 14 of 20 Pg ID 466
Olk-Long, 84 F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996). It is well-settled that a perceived

violation of state law does not provide a basis for federal habeas relief. Estelle v.

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). A state court’s interpretation of state

jurisdictional issues conclusively establishes jurisdiction for purposes of federal

habeas review. Strunk v. Martin, 27 F. App'x 473, 475, 2001 WL 1450740, *2 (6th

Cir. 2001). Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which federal habeas relief may

be granted as to this issue.2

 Habeas relief is not warranted on this claim.

D. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel Claim

Petitioner next asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge several issues such as the “warrant,

complaint, evidentiary hearings, [and] motions to quash.” Respondent contends

that this unexhausted claim lacks merit. As with Petitioner’s jurisdiction claim, the

Court’s review of this unexhausted claim is de novo. See discussion supra.

Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this claim. It is well-established that an

unconditional guilty plea or no contest plea constitutes a waiver of all pre-plea,

non-jurisdictional constitutional deprivations. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258,

267 (1973) (guilty plea); United States v. Freed, 688 F.2d 24, 25 (6th Cir. 1982) (no

2

The Court notes that to the extent that Petitioner raises nonjurisdictional challenges to the actions of the police, prosecutor, or the trial

court which occurred prior to the entry of his plea, such claims are

foreclosed by his plea. See discussion infra.

15

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 15 of 20 Pg ID 467
contest plea); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989). The

Supreme Court has explained:

[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has

preceded it in the criminal process. When a criminal defendant has

solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense

with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent

claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred

prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He may only attack the voluntary

and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice

he received from counsel was not within [constitutional standards].

Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267. Simply stated, a defendant who pleads guilty or no

contest waives any non-jurisdictional claims that arose before the entry of his plea.

Pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel claims are non-jurisdictional issues

which are waived by an unconditional plea. See United States v. Stiger, 20 F.

App’x. 307, 309 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Bohn, 956 F.2d 208, 209

(9th Cir. 1992)); Siebert v. Jackson, 205 F. Supp. 2d 727, 733-34 (E.D. Mich.

2002). In such a case, a court’s inquiry is limited to whether the plea was knowing,

intelligent, and voluntary. Broce, 488 U.S. at 569. Petitioner does not dispute the

knowing, intelligent, or voluntary nature of his plea – and the record of the plea

proceedings belies any such claims. Because Petitioner’s ineffective assistance

of trial counsel claim concerns the alleged deprivation of non-jurisdictional

constitutional rights that occurred before the entry of his unconditional plea, the

claim is foreclosed by his plea. Habeas relief is not warranted on this claim.

16

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 16 of 20 Pg ID 468
E. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel Claim

Lastly, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to habeas relief because

appellate counsel, like trial counsel, was ineffective for failing to raise issues such

as “the warrant, complaint, evidentiary hearings, motions to quash” on appeal. 

Respondent contends that this claim is unexhausted and lacks merit. As with

Petitioner’s jurisdiction and ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, the

Court’s review of this unexhausted claim is de novo. See discussion supra.

In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner

must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687

(1984). With regard to appellate counsel, it is well-settled that a criminal defendant

does not have a constitutional right to have appellate counsel raise every

non-frivolous issue on appeal. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). The

Supreme Court has explained:

For judges to second-guess reasonable professional judgments and

impose on appointed counsel a duty to raise every “colorable” claim

suggested by a client would disserve the ... goal of vigorous and

effective advocacy .... Nothing in the Constitution or our interpretation

of that document requires such a standard.

Id. at 754. Strategic and tactical choices regarding which issues to pursue on

appeal are “properly left to the sound professional judgment of counsel.” United

17

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 17 of 20 Pg ID 469
States v. Perry, 908 F.2d 56, 59 (6th Cir. 1990). In fact, “the hallmark of effective

appellate advocacy” is the “process of ‘winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal

and focusing on’ those more likely to prevail.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 536

(1986) (quoting Barnes, 463 U.S. at 751-52). “Generally, only when ignored issues

are clearly stronger than those presented will the presumption of effective

assistance of appellate counsel be overcome.” Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568,

579 (6th Cir. 2002). Appellate counsel may deliver deficient performance and

prejudice a defendant by omitting a “dead-bang winner,” defined as an issue which

was obvious from the trial record and would have resulted in reversal on appeal. 

Meade v. Lavigne, 265 F. Supp. 2d 849, 870 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

In this case, Petitioner fails to show that appellate counsel’s performance fell

outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Appellate counsel

raised the due process and double jeopardy sentencing issues on direct appeal. 

None of the other claims subsequently raised by Petitioner are “dead-bang

winners.” Rather, his jurisdictional claim is not supported by the record and his

other claims are foreclosed by his plea. Petitioner fails to establish that appellate

counsel was ineffective under the Strickland standard. Habeas relief is not

warranted on this claim.

18

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 18 of 20 Pg ID 470
V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to

federal habeas relief on the claims contained in his pleadings. Accordingly, the

Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Before Petitioner may appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must

issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). A certificate of

appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a court denies relief

on the merits, the substantial showing threshold is met if the petitioner

demonstrates that reasonable jurists would find the court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85

(2000). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that . . . jurists could

conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to

proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Having

conducted the requisite review, the Court concludes that Petitioner fails to make

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to his claims. The

Court, therefore, DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Lastly, the Court concludes that Petitioner should not be granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. 

19

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 19 of 20 Pg ID 471
See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: November 30, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel

of record on November 30, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

20

2:15-cv-11099-DPH-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 11/30/16 Pg 20 of 20 Pg ID 472