Opinion
Case No. 00-73393
September 19, 2000
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
I. Introduction
Petitioner Carol Ann Baker, a state inmate currently incarcerated 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. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied.
II. Background
On April 16, 1996, a search warrant was issued to search Petitioner's residence in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, for cocaine and any evidence of drug trafficking. Following execution of the search warrant, Petitioner was charged with possession with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant. On July 18, 1997, the Macomb County Circuit Court issued an Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner's motion. People v. Baker, No. 96-1677 (Macomb County Cir. Ct. July 18, 1997)
On July 29, 1997, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement whereby she pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver between 225 and 650 grams of cocaine. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the prosecutor requested that the court find compelling reasons to depart below the mandatory sentence of twenty to thirty years, and instead impose a sentence of ten to thirty years. Petitioner was sentenced to ten to twenty years imprisonment.
Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to quash the search warrant. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal "for lack of merit in the grounds presented." People v. Baker, No. 207749 (Mich.Ct.App. July 2, 1998).
Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, again challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to quash search warrant. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Baker, No. 112876 (Mich. March 30, 1999).
On February 4, 2000, Petitioner filed the pending habeas corpus petition, presenting the following claim:
Petitioner's conviction was obtained by use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure when the trial judge abused his discretion or was clearly erroneous when he denied the defendant's motion go quash search warrant and to suppress the evidence.III. Analysis A. Standard of Review
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA") altered the standard of review federal courts must apply when reviewing applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The AEDPA applies to all habeas petitions filed after the effective date of the act, April 24, 1996. Because petitioner's application was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the AEDPA, including the amended standard of review, apply to this case.
As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) imposes the following standard of review that a federal court must utilize when reviewing applications for a writ of habeas corpus:
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 or 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). Therefore, federal courts are bound by a state court's adjudication of a petitioner's claims unless the state court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1998). Additionally, this Court must presume the correctness of state court factual determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) ; see also Cremeans v. Chapleau, 62 F.3d 167, 169 (6th Cir. 1995) ("We give complete deference to state court findings unless they are clearly erroneous").
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct.
The United States Supreme Court has explained the proper application of the "contrary to" clause as follows:
A state-court decision will certainly be contrary to [the Supreme Court's] clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases. . . .
A state-court decision will also be contrary to this Court's clearly established precedent if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the Court's] precedent.Williams v. Taylor, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1519-20 (2000).
With respect to the "unreasonable application" clause of § 2254(d)(1), the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court should analyze a claim for habeas corpus relief under the "unreasonable application" clause when "a state-court decision unreasonably applies the law of this Court to the facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 1521. The Court defined "unreasonable application" as follows:
[A] federal habeas court making the "unreasonable application" inquiry should ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable . . .
[A]n unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law. . . . Under § 2254(d)(1)'s "unreasonable application" clause, then, a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.Id. at 1521-22.
With this standard in mind, the Court proceeds to the merits of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
B. Fourth Amendment Claim
Petitioner claims that she is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the trial court erred in denying her motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress evidence obtained from the search warrant. The Supreme Court has held that "where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at trial." Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494-95 (1976).
In the instant case, Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim was the subject of full briefing by both sides in the trial court. The trial court, applying the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard, held that probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant. Petitioner then had an opportunity to present her Fourth Amendment claim to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. Thus, Petitioner's Fourth Amendment claim was fully and fairly litigated in the Michigan trial and appellate courts and, consequently, is not cognizable on habeas review.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.