The Honor able Stephen J. Murphy , I I I , United S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0677n.06 No. 08-4654 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT M A T T H E W L. H ILL, Petitioner-Appellee ,

v. MI CHAEL

SHEETS, W arde n, Re sp on de nt- Ap pe lla

nt.

____________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR TH E SO UT HE RN D I S T R I C T O F O H I O

Before: G RIF F IN and WH ITE, Circuit Jud ges; M URP HY, District Judge. * HELE NE N. WH ITE, Circuit Jud ge. In this habeas c orpus proc eeding , Warden Micha el Sheets appea ls the di strict court’s order vacating petitioner Matthew Hill ’s sentenc e and dir ecting that H ill e ith e r be re se nte nc e d or re le a se d a s a re me dy fo r the vio la tio n o f h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts under Blakely v. W

ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We DI SM ISS the petition for lac k of jurisdiction. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY We a c c e pt t

he sta te a pp e llate c ourt ’s su mma

ry of the c a se : On F ebru ary 2, 20 04 , App e lla nt e nte re d th e re sid e nc e of Da nn y Th or nh ill

. An alter cation occ urre d betwee n Appellant and T hornhill. Durin g this altercation, T h o rnhill was struck r epea tedly with a handgun. Thornhill fled the re sidence , followed by Appellant who fired at least t wo shots at Thornhill. By the time police arr ived, Appellant ha d fled fr om the scene

.No. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

At sentenc ing, the trial court e x plained its rea sons for the se ntence : 1 The Court also finds that, g iven y our prior c riminal hist o ry g oing ba ck to a juv e nil e , whi c h inc lud e s rob be ry , the ft s, the no rm a l run -a -w ay ty pe of fe ns e s as w e ll as ag g ravated vehicula

r assa ult and ag g ravated vehicula r homicide, y o u h av e hurt pe op le in t

he pa st a nd ob vio us ly

y ou have no t le arn e d f

ro m it ; in c lud ing a

do me sti c violence in 2003 a

nd discharg ing a

firea rm in 2004, and then y ou go brea k into a pe rs on ’s ho us e and

e nd up sh oo tin g a t hi m on

the str e e t. B a se d o n th a t, t

he Court fi nd s, fi rs t of

a ll, that a

pr is on sen te nc e is -2- On Fe bruar

y 11, 2004, the Muskingum County Gra n d Ju r y in d ic ted Appellant on the following char g es: one count of Ag g ravated Robbery with a g un specific ation, in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2911.01(A)( 1) and 2941.145, a felony of the fi r s t d e g r e e ; o n e c o u n t o f A g g r a v a t e d B u r g l ar y w i t h a g u n s p e c i f

i c a t ion , in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2911.11(A) (2) a nd 2941.145, a fe lony

of the fi rs t d eg ree ; two counts of Fe lonious Assault with a gun spe cification, in viol ation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2903.11(A)( 2) and 2941.145, a felony of the sec ond deg ree ; one count of The ft of a F irea rm, in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2913.02(A)( 1) and 2941.145 , a felony of the four

th deg ree ; and one c ount of Ag g ravated B urg lary

with a g un specific ation, in violation of Ohio Rev ised Code Section 2911.11(A)( 1) and 2941.145, a felony of the fir st deg ree . On Fe bruar

y 18, 2004, appellant a

ppear ed for

arr aig nment and pled “ not g uilty ” to all counts set for th in the I ndictment. On Aug ust 3, 2004, a jury hear d the ca se. At the conc lusion of the trial, the jury deliberated and r eturne d a ver dict of “gui lty ” on the two c ounts of Fe lonious Assault with a g un specific ation, in v i o l ation of Ohio Revised Code Sec tion 2903.11(A)( 2) and 2941.145, both felonies of the s econd deg ree . The [j] ury found Ap pe lla nt “ no t g uil ty ” on

a ll o the r c ounts

. Ap p el l an twa s s en t en ce d

o nS ep t em b er 2 0 , 2 0 0 4

. At t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, the trial cour

t he ard the repor

t of the pre sentenc e investig ator a nd the ar g uments of counsel for

the respe ctive parties befor e pronounc ing se ntence . Ultimately , the trial court sente nced A

ppellant to serve a

prison sentenc e of e ight y ear s on eac h count of Fe l o nious Assault and three y ear s on eac h g un specific ation, all sentenc es to be se rv e d c on se c uti ve to o ne ano the r fo r a tot a l se nte nc e of 22 y e ars . Th is se nte nc e is the maxim um sentence that Appellant could have rec eived f or the c rimes for w hich he wa s convicted.[ ] 1No. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

appropr iate. The Court also finds that the mini m u m sentenc e would deme an the seriousness of the offe nse and also not a dequate ly protec t soc iety , and the maximum sentenc e is nec essar

y to protect socie ty

beca use y ou cre ate the greatest likelihood of c omm itt ingfu

rt he r cr ime s o f s imi lar n a tur e . Y ou have thr ou g ho ut your h ist or y so far . There fore , the Court will impos e an 8-y ear sentenc e on each of the fe lonies of the sec ond deg ree . Th e Court

a lso fi nd s tha t y our cr imi na l histo ry sh ow s th a t c on se c uti ve te rm s are neede d to protec t the publ ic. Therefor e, the Court will order the 8-y ear sentenc es be serve d c o n s e c u ti v e ly

. G iv e ny o u r n a tu r e an d y o u r h is to r y an d a ll th a t yo uhave done so fa

r, the Court finds that it’s nee ded to protec t the public. The C o u rt also imposes the 3-y ear g un specific ations. Each of the g un s p e c i f i c a t i o n s m u s t–

b y l aw m u s tb e s e r

v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y. Four day s later, the tr ial court issued a written entry

of judg ment further

explaining the sente nce: The Court finds that the pre sumption for second de g ree felonies is a pr ison term and that a g un specific ation is a mandatory consec utive sentenc e. The Court af

ter c onsideration of purposes and pr inciples under Re vised Code § 2929.11, and the f

actor s under § 2929.12 and § 2929.13(D), f inds that the offe nses wer e fa cili t at ed by

the def endant’ s relationship with the victim, that he has a pr ior a dju dic a tio n, a

his tor y of c ri min a l c on vic tio ns, h a s f a ile d to re sp on d in

the pa st t o probation, has f

ailed to ack n o wl ed ge a patter n of alc ohol/drug abuse r elated to the offe nses, and shows no g enuine r emorse. T he Court furthe r finds that the De fenda nt as a juve nile was convicted of Ag g ravated Vehic ular Assa ult, Agg ravated Vehic ular Homicide, and Robbe ry ; as an adult he has a c onviction for domestic violenc e, and was orde red to attend an ang er manag ement class. Ba sed upon the fa ctors found, the Court finds that the presumption for pr ison has not been r ebutted. The Court fur

ther finds that a m i n i mum sentence would demea n the se ri ou sn e ss o f t

he of fe ns e s, and

wo uld no t a de qu a te ly

pr ote c t so c ie ty . The Court in further consideration of the Def endant’ s rec ord finds that he ha s num er o u s prior crimes of violence, that he has a continuing pattern of violent ac ts, and that he poses the g reatest likelihood of committi ng future c rimes and in orde r to punish the de fe nd ant a

nd pr ote c t th e pu

bli c ma ximumc on se c uti ve se nte nc e s are no t on ly war rante d, but a

re not dispropor

tionate to the dang er the defe ndant poses. The Court further finds that the offe nses herein as well as t he gun specifications are not of allied -3-No. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

simil ar import and the defe ndant shall be sente nced on both c oun t s an d both gun sp e c if ic a tio ns . (empha sis removed.) -4- Although the rema ining pr ocedur al history in state court is complex , resolution of this appea l do e s not r e qu ir e that w e de sc ri be it i n d e ta il. I t is su ff ic ie nt t o n ote that H ill c ha lle ng e d h is conviction in both dir ect- appea l and post-conviction proc eeding s, raising sever al g rounds including that his sentence violated Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See also State v . Foster , 845 N.E.2d 470 (Ohio 2006)

. I n J une 2007 Hill , pr o s e , filed a f eder al habe as petition in the district court. He r aised two claims: 1) that his sentence was unc onstitut ional beca use the trial judg e dec ided sentenc ing f actor s instead of the jur

y , and 2) that his appellate c oun s el was inef fec tive for f

ailing to r aise a

doublejeopar dy claim on direc t appea l. The Warden argued that Hill’s claims were proce durally defa ulted

and me ri tle ss. I n J uly 2008, a mag istrate judge issued a repor t a nd rec ommendation, finding that Hill had pr oc e dura lly

de fa ult e d his cl a ims in state c ourt , but tha t the ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of Hi ll’ s a pp e llate counsel in fa iling to ra ise a Blakely claim provided c ause a nd prejudice excusing the de fault. The

ma g istrate jud g e c on c lud e d th a t H ill ’s Blakely c la im ha d me ri t ( and that hi s d ou

ble -j e op ard

y c la im d id n o t) an d r e c o mm e n d e d c o n d it io n a ll y g r an ti n g th e p e ti ti on on the Blak e ly claim. Over

the Warden’s obje ctions, the district court adopte d the re port and re commendatio n . T he cour t’s Novembe r

4 , 2008, order

vacated Hill’s sentenc e and dir ecte d that he “be rele ased f rom incar cer ation unless the state re sentenc es him within six ty (60) da y s.” The War den appe aled.No. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

The timing w as as f

ollows: On November 28, 2008, H ill subm itted p r o se motions for 2 prese ntence investigation and appointment of counsel “following the issuance of a Writ of Ha beas Cor pu s b y the Un ite d St a te s D istri c t Co ur t f or Oh io o n N ov e mbe r 5 , 2 00 8, re mand ingde fe nd ant H ill fo r r e se nte nc ingin t

his Court .” Al so on No ve mbe r 28 , 2 00 8, the War de n f ile d th e sta

y mot ion in fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt . ( R. 2 7. ) H ill su bmi tte d h is pro se brief opposing the moti on on Dec ember 9, 20 08. H ill fi le d h is pro se s tate

- c o u rt s e n te n c in g me mo r an d u m o n D e c e mb e r 1 6, 2008. On De c e mbe r 1 7, 20 08 , th e fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt g ra nte d th e sta

y . O n D e c e mbe r 2 2, 2008 , th e state court he l d a h ea ri n g reg ardingrese ntencingand continued the matter to “more fully rese arc h the details of the c ase.” The c ourt, appar ently unawa re of the stay , cited Hill’s favorable habea s-cor pus judgme nt in fede ral court as the ba sis for re sentenc ing. On De c e mbe r 29 , 2 00 8, the state c ourt , s til l appar ently

un aw ar e of the stay , ag ain re fer ence d Hill’s favora ble fe dera l habea s judgme nt, and rese ntence d Hill. Counsel f or both H ill and the State of Ohio we re pr esent at both Dece mber statec ourt re se nte nc inghe ari ng s. -5- Two day s after

filing his notice of

appea l, the Warden moved f or a stay of final judg ment pending appea l, which the district cour t g rante d. By that time, Hill had filed pro se mot ion s in state court to beg in the rese ntencingproce ss. Hill wa s rese ntence d in state court on Dec ember 29, 2008, 2 by a diffe rent sente ncing judge , to the same 22-y ear sentenc e. On appe al, Hil l filed a motion for counsel, which was g rante d, as we re the parties’ motions to take judicial notice of

Hill’s resente ncing

.

DI SCU SSIO N First and f

oremost, this appea l presents a jurisdictional issue. As this court has explained, Article I I I , Section 2 of the United States Constitution authoriz es the fe dera l judiciary on ly to he ar c a se s o r c on tr ov e rs ie s, and the re fo re fe de ra l c ourt s ma y no t e xer c ise jurisdiction when the contr oversy has been mooted, that is to say , when the issues prese nted ar e n o l o ng er live or the par ties lack a

leg ally cog nizable interest in the outcome. Ge ntr yv . D e uth , 456 F.3d 687, 693 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and c itations omi tted). I n Ge ntr y , this court held t hat a prisoner’ s rele ase did not moot her ha beas pe tition where he r statusNo. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

-6- a s a c on vic te d f

e lon wo uld c a us e he r t o f

a c e “ c oll a te ra l c on se qu e nc e s, ” su c h a s not be inga ble vo te

or ho ld p ub lic of

fi c e , a nd be ingsu bje c t to fe de ra l c ri min a l la ws and re str ic tio ns that app ly on ly to felons. Id . at 694-95. The Ge ntr ycourt distinguishe d the petitioner’s ha beas cl aim, which challeng ed her

conviction, from thos e of indivi duals who had c halleng ed only their sentenc es, or conditions of confine ment, and re ceive d full relief from any constitutional erro r o n ce they wer e rele ased. Id . at 69 4; se e als o J am es v. S in glet

ar y , 995 F.2d 187, 188- 89 (11th Cir. 1993) (fe dera l habea s petition challeng ing se ntencingmooted when state courts re sentenc ed petitioner)

. The district cour

t’s order conditionally

g ra n t i n g Hill’s petition vacated his sente nce a nd direc ted that he “ be re lease d from inca rce ration unless t h e s tate re sentenc es him within six ty (60) day s.” B eca

use the state r esentenced H ill, he has obtained one of the two individually sufficie nt op tio ns fo r re lie f or de re d by the dis tr ic t c ourt

. F ur the r, be c a us e Hi ll ob ta ine d ha

be a s relief

wi th reg ard to his sentenc ing claim alone, he does not ha ve a cog nizable interest in avoiding the collater al

c o n s e qu e n c e s o f

h is c o n v ic ti o n . A s th e Wa r d e nh im s e lf note d

in h is mo ti o nf

o r s ta y , “ [t ]o

rese ntence Hill would eff ectively moot this litigation.” We ag ree . The a ppeal be fore us is moot. I n the ir br ie fs , bo th pa

rt ie s a sse rt that Hi ll’ s re se nte nc ing wa s “ vo id” purs ua nt to 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 1( b) . T hat st a tut e state s in re le va nt p art : § 2 2 5 1 S t ay

o f S t at e c o u rt p ro ce ed i n gs (a) I n g ener al.– (1) Pendingmatters.– A justice or judge of t he United St ates be fore whom a hab ea s corpus pr ocee ding is pe nding, ma y , befor e fina l judgme nt or afte r final judgme nt of dischar g e, or pe nding a ppeal, stay any proce eding ag ainst the person detained in a ny State court or by

orNo. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

This is precisely

what the Warde n had aske d t h e district court to do. The Warde n’s stay 3 motion consistently

(and only) ref

err ed to the district c ourt’s own November 4, 2008, order of final judgme nt. The Warden’ s stay motion was entitled “Respondent Shee ts’ Motion for Stay of Court’s November

4, 2008[,] J udg ment.” Nor did the Warden’s motion cite § 2251 in its stay reque st. -7- under the authority of any State for any matter invol ved in t he habe as corpus pr ocee ding.

. . . (b) No f urther pr ocee dings.– A fter the g ranting of such a stay , any such proc eeding in an y St a te c o u rt o r b y o r u n d e r th e a u th o r it y o f an y St a te s h a ll b e v o id

. I f n o stay i s gra n t ed , an y s u ch p ro ce ed i n g s h al l b e a s v al i d as i f n o h ab ea s co rp u s p ro ce ed i n gs o r ap p ea l we re p en d i n g. 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (bold removed). De s p it e th e p arti e s ’ c o n c e s s io n s , it d o e s n o t a p p e ar th a t 2 8 U

. S. C. § 2 2 5 1 ( b ) a p plies here

. T h e s t ay p r o v i s i o na l l o w s f e d e r a l c o u rt s t o s t ay state-court proce edings

. See § 2251(a) (1) ( a fe dera l judge “may

. . . stay any proce eding ag ainst the person detained in a ny State court” ); 17B CHA RL ES ALAN WRI GH T, AR TH UR MI L L ER, ED WARD H. CO OPE R, & VI KR AM DA VI D A MA R, FED ERALPRACTI CE AND PROCEDURE, § 4268.4 (re fer ring to § 2251, stating “ [b] oth before and af ter judg ment the district court ha s authority t o s t ay al l state-c ourt proce eding s that have the

e ff e c t of de fe a tin g or

imp a ir ingthe fe de ra l c ourt ’s jur isd ic tio n. ” ); Mc Fa rla nd v . S c ott , 512 U.S. 849, 857 (1994) ( “ T h e f

e d e r a l h a b e a s c o r p u s s tatute g r an ts an y

f e d e r a l j u d g e ‘ b e f

o r e w h o m a

h a b e as corpus pr ocee ding is pe nding’ power to stay a state- court a ction ‘for

any matter involved in the habe a s c o r

p u s p r o c e e d i n g . ’ ” ) ( c i t i n g 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 1 , e mp h a s i s r e m o v e d )

. D e s p i t e t h e p a rt ie s’

asser tions to t he contr ary , it is pl ain that the district cour t’s order d i d n o t stay

any state-c ourt pr oc e e din g ; r a the r, the c ourt sta y e d it s o wn

jud gment. See Opinion and Orde r, R.30 at 1 (“ On

3 November

4, 2008 final judg ment was e ntere d . . . . This matter now is bef ore the Court onNo. 08-4654

Hi ll v . S he e ts

Nor doe s it appear

that Hill’s resente ncing violates the district court’ s order

. T h e order 4 g ranting the stay

clea rly envisioned af

fordingthe State time t o resolve the appea l before being c o mp e ll e d to r e s e n te n c e or re lease Hill. See R

. 3 0 a t3 , 2 ( “ B y g r an t i n g t h e r e qu e s tf o r a s t a y, responde nt will be able to obtain appe llate re view of this Court’s decision.”) (“the Court a g ree s that responde nt will suffer some i n j u ry ab s en t a stay . I f the Court doesn’ t stay execution of the conditional writ of h ab ea s co rpus, and the State of Ohio is require d to re-se ntence petitioner, responde nt’s appea l of this Court’s decision may be rende red moot.”). Howeve r, the orde r does not purport to pre vent the state f rom ch an ging c ourse a

nd voluntarily

participating in a r esente ncing pr oc e e din g be fo re re so lut ion of the a pp e a l. -8- responde nt’s reque st for a stay of final judg ment . . . . responde nt’s reque st for a stay [] is gr anted.” ). Thus, Hill’s resente ncing is not void under 28 U.S.C. § 2251(b). 4 CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, the a ppeal is moot. We DI SM ISS for lac k of jurisdiction.