Morrell v. Wardens

12 F.4th 626

Ronald Johnny-Wayne MORRELL (20-1238); Ricardo W. Edmonds (20-1347); Anthony E. Thompson (20-1448); Ronald Kennedy (20-1752), Petitioners-Appellees,

v.WARDENS,^* Respondents-Appellants.

Nos. 20-1238/1347/1448/1752

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: July 29, 2021

Decided and Filed: September 3, 2021

ARGUED: Scott R. Shimkus, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for the Appellants in 20-1448 and 20-1347. Daniel S. Harawa, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellee Thompson. James W. Amberg, AMBERG & AMBERG, PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellee Kennedy. ON BRIEF: Scott R. Shimkus, Jared D. Schultz, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for the Appellants. Daniel S. Harawa, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellee Thompson. James W. Amberg, AMBERG & AMBERG, PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellee Kennedy. Gary W. Crim, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee Morrell. Eugene Zilberman, SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P., Houston, Texas, for Appellee Edmonds.

Before: GIBBONS, STRANCH, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners Ronald Morrell, Ricardo Edmonds, Anthony Thompson, and Ronald Kennedy each filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of Michigan asking for relief based on Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The district courts held that the petitioners were entitled to relief because they were sentenced under Michigan's formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines that included enhancements for judicially found facts. The district courts conditionally granted the petitions and remanded petitioners’ cases to their respective state trial courts for resentencing. The state now agrees that Michigan's mandatory guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment and concedes that petitioners are entitled to some form of relief. The state argues, however, that instead of remanding for resentencing, the district court should have remanded petitioners’ cases for a more limited remedy known as a Crosby hearing where the trial court determines whether it would have issued a materially different sentence had the Michigan guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory at the time of the original sentencing. Because the district courts acted within their discretion to dispose of these habeas cases as law and justice require, we affirm the district courts’ judgment in each case.

I.

A.

On February 17, 2015, Ronald Morrell pled no contest to 26 counts for his role in an armed home robbery: one count of armed robbery, four counts of unlawful imprisonment, one count of first-degree home invasion, one count of larceny of a firearm, one count of larceny in a building, five counts of felonious assault, and thirteen counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Morrell v. Burton , No. 17-10961, 2020 WL 59700, 2020 WL 59700, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2020). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of thirty to sixty years for his armed-robbery conviction, ten to fifteen years for his unlawful-imprisonment and home-invasion convictions, two to five years for his larceny-of-a-firearm conviction, two to four years for his felonious-assault convictions, and two-year prison terms for his felony-firearm convictions, to be served consecutively to his other sentences but concurrently with one another. Id. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court denied Morrell's application for leave to appeal. People v. Morrell , No. 330591, 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 2606 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2016), leave to appeal denied , 500 Mich. 868, 885 N.W.2d 274 (2016) (mem.).

Morrell filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 13, 2017. Among other things, Morrell argued that the sentencing court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by using judicially found facts to score offense variables under the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines. Morrell , 2020 WL 59700, at *1. The district court held that Michigan's sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Thus, the district court granted Morrell's petition and ordered "the state trial court to conduct a re-sentencing in conformity with the Sixth Circuit's holding in [ Robinson v. Woods , 901 F.3d 710, 718 (6th Cir. 2018) ]." Morrell , 2020 WL 59700, at *4.

The state timely filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment before the district court. The state conceded that Morrell is entitled to some form of relief but challenged the district court's chosen remedy. The state argued that instead of a full resentencing, the court should remand to the state trial court "to allow it to determine whether it would have imposed a materially different sentence if it had not been constrained by the previously mandatory guidelines, given that the guidelines are now advisory." DE 33, Morrell, Mot. to Alter or Amend the J., Page ID 1737. The state's requested relief is referred to as a Crosby hearing after United States v. Crosby , 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). After giving Morrell a chance to respond, the district court denied the state's motion to alter or amend the judgment. Morrell v. Burton , 17-10961, 2020 WL 746954 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2020). The state timely appealed.

B.

On August 6, 2013, a Michigan trial court convicted Ricardo Edmonds of one count each of home invasion and aggravated stalking. As a habitual offender, he was sentenced to a minimum of twenty-one and a half years and a maximum of forty years imprisonment for each conviction. This sentence was based on Edmonds's guideline range, which included three sentencing enhancements for facts not found by the jury. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Edmonds , No. 318262, 2014 WL 7157625 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2014), leave to appeal denied , 497 Mich. 1031, 863 N.W.2d 311 (2015) (mem.).

Edmonds filed a motion for relief from judgment after the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v. Lockridge , 498 Mich. 358, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015), which held that the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to have a jury find any facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentences. Id . at 511. The state court denied Edmonds's motion because it found that Lockridge did not apply retroactively. Edmonds's leave to appeal was denied by the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. People v. Edmonds , No. 33634, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 2215 (Mich. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), leave to appeal denied , 501 Mich. 1059, 910 N.W.2d 250 (2018) (mem.).

Edmonds filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in May 2018. The district court denied Edmonds's petition because it concluded that it was not clearly established at the time that the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional. Edmonds v. Rewerts , No. 18-11691, 2019 WL 423820 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2019). This court granted a certificate of appealability on Edmonds's sentencing claim. During the pendency of his appeal, the state conceded that Edmonds was entitled to habeas relief based on Michigan's unconstitutional sentencing guidelines and requested that Edmonds's appeal be held in abeyance while it requested a remand. The district court subsequently granted Edmonds relief on his sentencing claim and ordered "the state trial court to conduct a re-sentencing in conformity with the Sixth Circuit's holding in Robinson ." Edmonds v. Rewerts, No.18-11691, slip op. at 6, 2020 WL 10963776 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 27, 2020). The state appealed, arguing that the district court should have ordered a Crosby remand to the state court rather than a full resentencing.

C.

Anthony Thompson was convicted of second-degree murder, possession of a firearm while under the influence, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. People v. Thompson , No. 319075, 2015 WL 1122675, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. March 12, 2015). He was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years of imprisonment for second-degree murder, five to fifteen years of imprisonment for possession of a firearm while under the influence, and a consecutive two-year sentence of imprisonment for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Id. Thompson alleges that his "entire sentencing proceeding was infected with errors," including multiple inaccuracies in his presentencing report. CA 6 R. 26, Appellee Br., 5. Nevertheless, his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. People v. Thompson , No. 319075, 2015 WL 1122675, leave to appeal denied , 498 Mich. 885, 869 N.W.2d 611 (2015) (mem.).

Thompson subsequently moved for relief from judgment in the state trial court, arguing that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment because the trial court engaged in judicial factfinding. The trial court denied Thompson's motion because it held that Lockridge did not apply retroactively. The Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court denied Thompson's application for leave to appeal.

In December 2018, Thompson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court conditionally granted Thompson's petition after finding that Michigan's Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional and ordered the Michigan state court to resentence Thompson within 90 days of the date of the opinion. Thompson v. Winn , No. 2:18-cv-13959, 2020 WL 1847967 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2020). The state filed a notice of appeal on May 12, 2020. On May 28, 2020, the state filed a motion for a stay pending appeal arguing for the first time (in this case) that the district court should have ordered a Crosby remand instead of a full resentencing.¹ The district court granted the stay.

D.

On May 20, 2013, Ronald Kennedy was convicted of second-degree murder, assault with intent to murder, and domestic violence. People v. Kennedy , No. 316985, 2014 WL 6853000, at *1 (...