Opinion
No. 335499
10-12-2017
JAMES EDWARD KITCHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GUS HARRISON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, Defendant-Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 16-165610-AH Before: SAAD, P.J., and CAVANAGH and CAMERON, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
While plaintiff also argued that he was entitled to relief from the judgment under MCR 2.612, the trial court appeared to treat plaintiff's motion as only a motion for reconsideration and did not rule on plaintiff's motion for relief from the judgment. See Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 691-692; 822 NW2d 254 (2012) (holding that courts are not bound by the labels parties attached to their claims). Therefore, we only address plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff was convicted by jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a). Plaintiff appealed his convictions claiming prosecutorial misconduct, and this Court affirmed. See People v Kitchen, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 13, 2007 (Docket No. 267045), p 1.
Thereafter, plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, claiming it lacked jurisdiction over him due to three defects that occurred at the district court level: (1) he was arraigned by Judge Leanna Lacross who lacked judicial authority because she was not licensed to practice law, (2) no plea was offered, accepted, or entered, and (3) the arraignment occurred on a Sunday. The trial court entered an order denying plaintiff's petition, holding that plaintiff was found guilty by a jury, there was no radical jurisdictional defect, and he was attempting to appeal his conviction and sentence by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration and relief from judgment. The trial court concluded that plaintiff simply restated the issues previously ruled on, and he failed to establish any relief under MCR 2.119(F). This appeal followed.
"A prisoner's right to file a complaint for habeas corpus relief is guaranteed by Const 1963, art 1, § 12," Moses v Dep't of Corrections, 274 Mich App 481, 484; 736 NW2d 269 (2007), and this Court reviews questions of constitutional law de novo, People v Dendel, 481 Mich 114, 124; 748 NW2d 859, amended 481 Mich 1201 (2008). We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration. K & W Wholesale, LLC v Dep't of Treasury, 318 Mich App 605, 611; 899 NW2d 432 (2017). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628-629; 794 NW2d 92 (2010).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion. We disagree.
A prisoner has a constitutional and statutory right to file a complaint for habeas corpus relief. Moses, 274 Mich App at 485; Morales v Parole Bd, 260 Mich App 29, 40; 676 NW2d 221 (2003). "The object of the writ of habeas corpus is 'to determine the legality of the restraint under which a person is held.' " Moses, 274 Mich App at 485, quoting Phillips v Warden, State Prison of Southern Mich, 153 Mich App 557, 565; 396 NW2d 482 (1986). While MCL 600.4310(3) prohibits relief to "[p]ersons convicted, or in execution, upon legal process, civil or criminal," habeas relief may be granted to a convicted person "where the convicting court was without jurisdiction to try the defendant for the crime in question." Moses, 274 Mich App at 485-486. Accordingly, "[t]he writ of habeas corpus deals with radical defects that render a judgment or proceeding absolutely void." Id. at 485. "A radical defect in jurisdiction contemplates . . . an act or omission by state authorities that clearly contravenes an express legal requirement in existence at the time of the act or omission." Id. at 486 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Regardless, "habeas relief may be denied in the exercise of a court's discretion where full relief may be obtained in other more appropriate proceedings." Id.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. When seeking reconsideration, "[t]he moving party must demonstrate a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of the error." MCR 2.119(F)(3). A motion which merely presents the same issue as ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. MCR 2.119(F)(3). Plaintiff did not demonstrate a palpable error that merited reconsideration of the issue. Instead, plaintiff raised the same jurisdictional challenges in his motion for reconsideration as he did in his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He also listed the same alleged crimes committed by the district court judge and the same alleged constitutional violations. Because the same issues were presented for reconsideration as were presented in the original petition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
Defendant has not contested this Court's jurisdiction, but we have held that a plaintiff cannot file a claim of appeal challenging the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's petition for habeas corpus, but must instead file an original complaint for habeas corpus in this Court. See Triplett v Deputy Warden, 142 Mich App 774, 779-780; 371 NW2d 862 (1985). In any event we will treat the claim of appeal as an original complaint for habeas corpus and address the merits of plaintiff's complaint. --------
Furthermore, plaintiff's claim lacks any merit. As the trial court held, plaintiff attempted to attack his conviction through a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed three jurisdictional defects when the case was in district court, and he could have raised those jurisdictional challenges during the appeal of his conviction. Moses, 274 Mich App at 486. Even more, plaintiff's challenge was based on defects during the district court proceedings. However, "[o]nce a preliminary examination is held and the defendant is bound over on any charge, the circuit court obtains jurisdiction over the defendant." People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 221; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). Thus, even if there was a defect in the district court, it was harmless once plaintiff was bound over, the circuit court took jurisdiction, and a conviction was rendered after a fair trial. People v Hall, 435 Mich 559, 610-613; 460 NW2d 520 (1990) (holding that any error at the preliminary examination is considered harmless once a valid conviction is obtained).
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron