UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELICE PATTON ARNOLD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 09-11742

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

HEIDI WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. District

Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan on May 13, 2009.

PRESENT: HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Petitioner Elice Patton Arnold (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner presently confined at

the Scott Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the propriety of her

second-degree murder sentence.

I.

Promptly after the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the district 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

2:09-cv-11742-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 7
2

not entitled to relief in the district court, . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see

also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If, after preliminary consideration, the court determines that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court must summarily dismiss the petition. Id., see

also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856, 114 S. Ct. 2568, 2572 (1994); Carson v.

Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1999); Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.

1970) (district court has the duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on their face). 

No response to a habeas petition is necessary when the petition is frivolous, obviously

lacks merit, or where the necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself

without consideration of a response from the respondent. See Allen, 424 F.2d at 141;

Robinson v. Jackson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 524, 525 (E.D. Mich. 2005). After undertaking the

review required by Rule 4, this Court concludes that the claim raised in the petition is

meritless, such that the petition must be denied.

II.

In July 2007, in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, Petitioner

pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws Section

750.317 and nolo contendere to assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of Michigan

Compiled Laws Section 750.82. The trial court subsequently sentenced Petitioner to a

term of imprisonment of eighteen years and six months to sixty years on the murder

conviction and one to four years on the assault conviction. Following sentencing,

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

Appeals, which the court denied for lack of merit. People v. Arnold, No. 286736 (Mich.

2:09-cv-11742-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 8
3

Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2008) (unpublished). She also filed an application for leave to appeal

with the Michigan Supreme Court, which the Court denied on February 24, 2009. People

v. Arnold, 483 Mich. 896, 760 N.W.2d 480 (2009). On March 30, 2009, Petitioner filed

the instant petition for habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the

Western District of Michigan. The court transferred the case to this district on April 30,

2009.

III.

In her habeas application, Petitioner states that she is challenging her seconddegree murder sentence and claims: “My guidelines were overstepped. Went over the

guidelines. Lawyer stated it.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) She asks to be re-sentenced. (Id.) Claims

which arise out of a state trial court’s sentencing decision are not normally cognizable

upon habeas review unless the petitioner can show that the sentence imposed exceeds the

statutory limit or is wholly unauthorized by law. See Lucey v. Lavigne, 185 F. Supp. 2d

741, 745 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

Petitioner’s claim that the trial court erred in departing from Michigan’s guideline

range is not cognizable on federal habeas review because it is a state law claim. See

Howard v. White, 76 Fed. Appx. 52, 53 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished opinion) (“A state

court’s alleged misinterpretation of state sentencing guidelines and crediting statutes is a

matter of state concern only.”); Cheatham v. Hosey, No. 93-319, 1993 WL 478854, at *2

(6th Cir. Nov.19, 1993) (unpublished opinion) (ruling that departure from state sentencing

guidelines is a state law issue which is not cognizable on federal habeas review); McPhail

2:09-cv-11742-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 9
4

v. Renico, 412 F. Supp. 2d 647, 656 (E.D. Mich. 2006). “In short, petitioner had no

federal constitutional right to be sentenced within Michigan’s guideline minimum

sentence recommendations.” Doyle v. Scutt, 347 F. Supp. 2d 474, 485 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 

Any error in departing from the guideline range does not merit habeas relief. State courts

are the final arbiters of state law and the federal courts will not intervene in such matters. 

See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S. Ct. 3092, 3102 (1990); Oviedo v. Jago,

809 F.2d 326, 328 (6th Cir. 1987). Habeas relief does not lie for perceived errors of state

law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 480 (1991).

Petitioner also cannot prevail on any claim that her second-degree murder sentence

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The United

States Constitution does not require strict proportionality between a crime and its

punishment. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 965, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 2686

(1991); United States v. Marks, 209 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2000). “Consequently, only

an extreme disparity between crime and sentence offends the Eighth Amendment.” 

Marks, 209 F.3d at 583. A sentence within the maximum penalty authorized by statute

“generally does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’” Austin v. Jackson, 213

F.3d 298, 302 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Organek, 65 F.3d 60, 62 (6th Cir.

1995)). “Federal courts will not engage in a proportionality analysis except in cases

where the penalty imposed is death or life in prison without possibility of parole.” United

States v. Thomas, 49 F.3d 253, 261 (6th Cir. 1995).

As indicated above, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment

2:09-cv-11742-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 10
5

of eighteen years and six months to sixty years on her second-degree murder conviction. 

Her sentence is within the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. See Mich. Comp. L.

§ 750.317. Consequently, it does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Habeas relief is not

warranted.

IV.

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

habeas relief on the claim raised in her petition.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copy to:

Elice Patton Arnold, #644454

Robert Scott Correctional Facility

47500 Five Mile Road

Plymouth, MI 48170

2:09-cv-11742-PJD-VMM Doc # 4 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 11