Washington v. Tanner

Washington v. Tanner · United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · January 31, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-13142

Summary

This federal district court opinion denies a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner challenged his Michigan state court convictions on grounds including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to a one-man grand jury indictment, the applicability of People v. Peeler, and the absence of a preliminary examination. The court found that state courts conclusively determine their own jurisdiction, there is no federal right to a preliminary examination, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate a substantial denial of constitutional rights. Consequently, the petition was denied, a certificate of appealability was declined, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal was granted.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
Writing for the Court
Gershwin A. Drain
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
January 31, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-13142
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied; certificate of appealability denied; permission to appeal in forma pauperis granted.
Standard of review
AEDPA deference; unreasonable determination of law or fact standard.
Precedential value
non-precedential
Parties
Quintin Washington v. Jeff Tanner
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

post-conviction reliefhabeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Michigan state court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because Washington was indicted by a one‑man grand jury.
  2. Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals erred in denying Washington’s appeal after the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Peeler.
  3. Whether the failure to provide a preliminary examination violated Washington’s federal or Michigan constitutional rights.

Holdings

  1. The district court held that Washington is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because the state court’s jurisdictional determination is binding.
  2. The district court held that Washington is not entitled to relief because the state appellate court’s jurisdictional determination is binding.
  3. The district court held that the failure to provide a preliminary examination did not violate Washington’s federal or state constitutional rights, and therefore no relief is warranted.

Key quotations

Whether a state court was ‘vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.’ (*17)

Factual background

In 2018 Washington was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and multiple felon‑in‑possession offenses arising from a non‑fatal shooting. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, resentenced after a state appellate remand, and later filed a habeas petition claiming the indictment by a one‑man grand jury and lack of a preliminary examination rendered the state court proceedings void.

Procedural history

Washington was convicted in Michigan state courts of assault and firearms offenses, resentenced after a state appellate decision, and subsequently filed a federal habeas petition alleging lack of jurisdiction, improper denial by the Michigan Court of Appeals, and denial of a preliminary examination. The district court denied the petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…