UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL WILLIAMS #219166,

Petitioner,

v. Case Number: 09-cv-13098

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

NICK LUDWICK,

Respondent.

______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Paul Williams, currently incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in

St. Louis, Michigan, filed a pro se Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In

2008, Petitioner pleaded guilty to unarmed robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender,

fourth, to 114- to 480-months in prison. In his pro se pleadings, Petitioner alleges that he is

entitled to re-sentencing before a different trial judge because the statutory sentencing guidelines

were misscored.

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, provides that the court shall promptly

examine a petition to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” If the court determines that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall summarily dismiss the petition. McFarland v.

Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas

petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.”). For the reasons discussed, the Court

denies Petitioner’s Petition.

2:09-cv-13098-VAR-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 14
1

Blakely v. Washington, 543 U.S. 296 (2004).

2

I.

Following Petitioner’s guilty plea, he filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the

Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the same claim as raised in his Habeas Petition. On October

1, 2008, the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s Application. People v. Williams, No. 287355

(Mich.Ct.App. Oct. 1, 2008). Petitioner then filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the

Michigan Supreme Court, raising the same claim. On February 24, 2009, the Michigan Supreme

Court also denied Petitioner’s Application. People v. Williams, 483 Mich. 895; 760 N.W.2d 473

(2009). Petitioner filed his Petition on August 6, 2009.

II.

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

misscored offense variable 1, by relying upon facts not determined by a jury. Petitioner is

essentially raising a Blakely1 claim.

Sentencing claims only raise questions of the interpretation and application of state law.

Thomas v. Foltz, 654 F.Supp. 105, 106-107 (E.D. Mich. 1987). It is well-established that habeas

relief does not lie for perceived errors of state law. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,

67-68 (1991). State courts are the final arbiters of state law and the federal courts will not

intervene in such matters. See Oviedo v. Jago, 809 F.2d 326, 328 (6th Cir. 1987). There is also

no federal constitutional right to individualized sentencing. See United States v. Thomas, 49

F.3d 253, 261 (6th Cir. 1995).

Although state law requires judges to provide a substantial and compelling reason for

departing from the sentencing guidelines, see MICH. COMP. LAWS § 769.34(3) and Mich. Ct. R.

2:09-cv-13098-VAR-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 15
3

6.425(E)(1)(e), the alleged violation of Michigan law is not a basis for habeas relief. Lewis v.

Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990). “In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to

deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975) (per

curiam)).

Against that backdrop, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s sentencing claim is not

cognizable upon federal-habeas review and is without merit.

Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner relies on Blakely, a majority of the Supreme Court

in that case indicated that its decision applied only to determinate sentencing systems. See

Blakely, 542 U.S. at 308-09. Michigan, however, has an indeterminate sentencing system in

which the minimum sentence generally is based on sentencing guidelines and the maximum

sentence is set by law, not by the trial court. People v. Claypool, 470 Mich. 715, 730; 684

N.W.2d 278, 286, n. 14 (2004). “[B]ecause a Michigan defendant is always subject to serving

the maximum sentence provided for in the statute that he or she was found to have violated, that

maximum sentence constitutes the ‘statutory maximum’ as set forth in Blakely.” People v.

Drohan, 475 Mich. 140, 163-64;715 N.W.2d 778, 791 (2006). See also Jones v. Bergh, 2006

WL 1007602, 1-2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2006); George v. Burt, 2006 WL 156396, 5 (E.D. Mich.

Jan. 20, 2006); Walton v. McKee, 2005 WL 1343060, 3 (E.D. Mich. June 1, 2005). More

recently, the United States 

Supreme Court, in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 280-81 (2007), confirmed its

2:09-cv-13098-VAR-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 16
2

Last year, the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Drohan that

Michigan’s indeterminate sentencing scheme is valid under Blakely. See People v. Harper, 479

Mich. 599, 614-15; 739 N.W.2d 523, 533 (2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1444 (2008). See also

People v. McCuller, 479 Mich. 672, 686; 739 N.W.2d 563, 571 (2007) (stating that the United

States Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham does not require the Michigan Supreme Court

to modify its decision in Drohan and that a sentencing court does not violate Blakely by

engaging in judicial fact-finding to calculate the recommended minimum sentence range), cert.

denied, McCuller v. Michigan, 128 S.Ct. 1871 (2008).

On remand, the Michigan Supreme Court held that even if Michigan’s

“intermediate-sanction cells” were characterized as setting maximum sentences for Blakely

purposes, the sentencing court did not violate Blakely by scoring the OVs to set the minimum

recommended sentence and by imposing a prison sentence within the guidelines. See McCuller,

479 Mich. At 676-98; 739 N.W.2d at 565-77 (Corrigan, J., joined by Taylor, Weaver, Young &

Markman, JJ.), applied by, e.g., People v. Higgins, 2008 WL 786524 (Mich.Ct.App. Mar.25,

2008) and People v. Anderson, 2008 WL 215216 (Mich.Ct.App. Jan.24, 2008).

4

holding in Blakely.

2

The Court therefore concludes that it plainly appears from the face of the Habeas Petition

that Petitioner is not entitled to relief.

III.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner’s “Petitioner for

Writ of Habeas Corpus” [dkt. # 1].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: August 19, 2009

2:09-cv-13098-VAR-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 17
5

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

and Paul Williams by electronic means or U.S.

Mail on August 19, 2009.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-13098-VAR-MJH Doc # 2 Filed 08/19/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 18