Hartman 718555 v. Berghuis, 1:12-cv-01015

Hartman, a state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging Michigan sentences.
Hartman pleaded no contest to unlawful imprisonment and to threatening a witness, resulting in consecutive 5–15 and 7–15 year terms.
Plea agreement conditioned on potential 12-year minimum if consecutive sentences were imposed; petitioner could withdraw plea if the court did not follow the agreement.
Petitioner challenged PRV 7 scoring and OV calculations and the imposition of consecutive sentences; the state courts denied relief and the federal court reviews under AEDPA.
The court applied the AEDPA standard and concluded the claims were not meritorious; Alleyne’s retroactivity was considered but decided not to apply retroactively to collateral review.
Recommended disposition: deny the habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
PRV 7 scoring and consecutive-sentencing lawfulness	Hartman argues improper PRV 7 scoring and unlawful consecutive sentences.	Berghuis argues proper scoring and necessity of consecutive sentencing under Michigan law.	Petition denied; scoring and consecutive sentences found permissible under controlling law.
Apprendi/Blakely alignment with Michigan’s indeterminate system	Hartman contends penalties may exceed statutory maximum without proper juror fact finding.	Respondent contends Michigan’s indeterminate system avoids Blakely issues; Alleyne not retroactive.	No Sixth Amendment violation; Alleyne not retroactive on collateral review; Blakely limitation does not apply to this indeterminate scheme.
Right to retained counsel of choice during sentencing	Hartman contends denial of adjournment for substitute counsel violated Sixth Amendment	Court reasonably denied adjournment given timing and readiness of counsel.	No Sixth Amendment violation; denial of adjournment reasonable under the circumstances.
Prejudice and due process regarding potential risk assessment	Hartman argues a risk assessment could aid sentencing and was prejudged by the court	Court properly weighed discretion and timing; no prejudice shown.	No due process violation; claim rejected.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts beyond the prior conviction must be found by a jury to raise penalties)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (restrictions on judge-found facts increasing sentences under determinate systems)
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (S. Ct. 2013) (extended Apprendi to mandatory minimums; not retroactive on collateral review)
Montes v. Trombley, 599 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2010) (Michigan indeterminate sentencing does not violate Blakely)
Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1982) (federal courts generally do not review state-sentencing errors)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clarifies rule-clarification for clearly established federal law)
Drohan v. Michigan, 715 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. 2006) (Mich. guidelines framework; minimum vs maximum sentences)
People v. Babcock, 666 N.W.2d 231 (Mich. 2003) (discussion of minimum sentence within guidelines range)