DENNIS WILLS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES EGELER, WARDEN OF STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that federal courts cannot grant habeas corpus relief based on alleged violations of state law or state constitutional provisions.
Petitioner, convicted of armed robbery in Michigan state court, sought federal habeas corpus relief, claiming the state district court lacked jurisdic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dennis E. Wills, petitioner-appellant, is serving a sentence of eight to fifteen years in a Michigan State Prison for armed robbery. His sentence was imposed by the Circuit Court of Macomb County on March 19, 1974 after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty.
District Judge Charles W. Joiner denied the application of Wills for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Wills contends that the state district court had no jurisdiction to bind him over for trial and therefore the state trial court acquired no jurisdiction to try and convict him. For this position he relies upon Article IV, § 24 of the Constitution of Michigan, which provides: “No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.”
The Supreme Court of Michigan rejected this contention in People v. Milton, 393 Mich. 234, 224 N.W. 2d 266 (1974), holding that the state district courts have the requisite criminal jurisdiction and that the statute conferring jurisdiction did not violate Article IV, § 24 of the State Constitution.
Federal habeas corpus relief can be granted only for violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Combs v. Tennessee, 530 F. 2d 695 (6th Cir. 1976). The constitutional provision relied upon by Wills appears in the Constitution of Michigan, not the Constitution of the United States. Determination of whether a state court' is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary. United States ex rel. Herrington v. Mancusi, 415 F. 2d 205 (2nd Cir. 1969).
This case came on to be heard pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 3(e).1
The court concludes that the appeal is frivolous and completely without merit. Sixth Circuit Rule 9.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
. (e) Docket Control. In the interest of docket control, the chief judge may from time to time, in his discretion, appoint a panel or panels to review pending cases for appropriate assignment or disposition under Rules 7(e), 8 or 9 or any other rule of this court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin v. Solem, 801 F.2d 324 (8th Cir. 1986)
-
The United States ex rel. Antonio Roche v. Scully, 739 F.2d 739 (2d Cir. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- Combs v. State OF Tenn., 530 F.2d 695 (6th Cir. 1976)
- United States ex rel. Robert A. Herrington v. Mancusi, 415 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1969)