Marcus Magnum Reign v. Lori Gidley
929 F.3d 777
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Aug. 2014 Marcus Magnum Reign pled guilty to armed robbery in Michigan; the state court calculated a minimum-sentence guidelines range (108–180 months) using judge-found facts and sentenced him to 144 months.
- After a correction, the court recalculated the guidelines to 81–135 months (6 3/4–11 1/4 years); due to counsel’s misstatement the court initially imposed a 10-year minimum instead of the 9-year midpoint, then lowered it to 9 years on motion.
- Five days after the first resentencing, the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v. Lockridge, holding Michigan’s guidelines unconstitutional as mandatory under Alleyne and Booker and making them advisory only; Lockridge directed remand when the Sixth Amendment was violated to determine whether a materially different sentence would have been imposed.
- Magnum Reign asked the sentencing court to reconsider under Lockridge; the court reviewed the record, concluded it would have imposed the same (middle-of-range) sentence under an advisory scheme, and declined to hold a new hearing.
- State appellate courts summarily denied relief; Magnum Reign then filed federal habeas relief, arguing the sentencing court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by relying on judge-found facts and not conducting a resentencing hearing.
- The district court denied the petition; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding denial of a new hearing was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Magnum Reign) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court was required to hold a new resentencing hearing after Lockridge made guidelines advisory | The prior sentence relied on unconstitutional judge-found facts and the court should have resentenced to determine if a materially different sentence would be imposed | The trial court properly reconsidered the sentence and expressly found it would impose the same sentence under an advisory regime, so no new hearing was required | No new hearing required; state court action not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA |
| Whether consideration of judge-found facts alone mandates resentencing post-Lockridge | Judge-found facts used to calculate the range rendered the sentence invalid and resentencing is necessary | Lockridge rendered guidelines advisory but did not eliminate scoring; courts may still consider those facts and may determine harmlessness without full resentencing | Court held the constitutional error was the mandatory character of guidelines, not mere consideration of judge-found facts; resentencing not compelled here |
| Whether Booker and its remedy require resentencing hearings in all similar cases | Booker’s remand language and subsequent caselaw require resentencing rather than harmless-error review when Sixth Amendment objections are raised | Booker did not clearly establish that every collateral/post-Lockridge case requires a resentencing hearing; varying circuit approaches show no clear rule | Booker does not clearly establish a mandatory resentencing rule for AEDPA purposes; fairminded jurists could differ |
| Whether AEDPA forbids the state court’s procedure of deciding without a new hearing | Magnum Reign must only show possibility of lower sentence if resentenced | Under AEDPA, petitioner must show state court’s decision contravened clearly established Supreme Court law; mere possibility insufficient | AEDPA not satisfied; state court decision entitled to deference and habeas relief properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (holds facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (renders Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory as remedy for Sixth Amendment error)
- People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015) (Michigan holds guidelines unconstitutional as mandatory and makes them advisory)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (establishes standards for §2254(d)(1) review of state-court decisions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court determinations; "fairminded jurists" standard)
- United States v. Milan, 398 F.3d 445 (6th Cir.) (discusses post-Booker remand procedures and rejects Crosby approach)
- United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (endorsed remand to district court to determine need for resentencing post-Booker)
- Robinson v. Woods, 901 F.3d 710 (6th Cir.) (habeas relief granted where petitioner had not had an opportunity to seek reconsideration under advisory guidelines)