685 F.Supp.3d 487
E.D. Mich.2023Background
- In October 2018 a Monroe County, Michigan jury convicted Paul Edward Lojewski of two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of accosting a child for immoral purposes. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 58–180 months’ imprisonment.
- While incarcerated, Lojewski filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition (Aug. 2022) raising four claims: verdict against the great weight of the evidence; trial-court violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- Respondent filed the state-court record and an answer on Feb. 22, 2023, opposing relief and supplying the trial record.
- Lojewski moved to expand the record and for an evidentiary hearing (arguing the state record is underdeveloped for his ineffective-assistance claims), and separately moved for appointed counsel (citing complexity, incarceration, and limited law-library access).
- The district court denied the motions without prejudice on Aug. 1, 2023, finding: (1) federal habeas review is limited to the state-court record (Cullen v. Pinholster); (2) Lojewski failed to identify new law or factual predicates that would satisfy § 2254(e); and (3) appointment of counsel was not warranted because Lojewski competently presented his claims and no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing / expanded record is required for ineffective-assistance claims | Lojewski: state record is underdeveloped; additional evidence/fact-finding is needed | Respondent: state record and answer are sufficient; Pinholster limits adding new evidence | Denied — no new law or factual predicate shown; habeas review limited to state-court record; petitioner did not show disputed material facts requiring hearing |
| Whether petitioner may add evidence not presented to state courts (Pinholster limitation) | Lojewski seeks to supplement the record with additional facts to support claims | Respondent relies on Pinholster limitation that federal review is limited to state-court record | Denied — court applied Cullen v. Pinholster; petitioner cannot inject new evidence not presented to state courts |
| Whether appointment of counsel is required | Lojewski: case is complex; incarceration and limited resources impede his ability to litigate | Respondent: appointment discretionary and not necessary because petitioner filed coherent filings | Denied — appointment discretionary; petitioner has demonstrated ability to present claims; no evidentiary hearing required that would mandate counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (federal habeas review under § 2254(d) is limited to the state-court record)
- Sawyer v. Hofbauer, 299 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2002) (standards for when an evidentiary hearing is appropriate in habeas cases)
- Lemeshko v. Wrona, 325 F. Supp. 2d 778 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings is mandatory only if an evidentiary hearing is required)
- Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1986) (appointment of counsel in exceptional habeas cases where petitioner cannot adequately present claims)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (right to counsel at critical stages of criminal proceedings)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (postconviction right to appointed counsel extends only to first appeal of right)
- Griffin v. Berghuis, 298 F. Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (petitioner must identify disputed facts and provide factual detail to warrant an evidentiary hearing)