[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-203592-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-203592-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","united-states-district-court-western-district-of-michigan-report-and-recommendation","United States District Court - Western District of Michigan - Report and Recommendation","","Report and recommendation issued by a United States District Court in the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, addressing Garfield Lawson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The filing states that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a magistrate judge recommends denial of the petition. The background recounts the August 31, 1997 jail incident, trial convictions, appellate history in the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court, subsequent procedural developments, and the applicable AEDPA standard of review.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/united-states-district-court-western-district-of-michigan-report-and-recommendation/203592/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-district-court-western-district-of-michigan-report-and-recommendation/203592.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Ethan Miller","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-17","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",19,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the court’s recommendation regarding Lawson’s habeas corpus petition?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The report and recommendation states that Lawson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What incident formed the basis of Lawson’s underlying criminal convictions?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"On August 31, 1997, Lawson attacked Deputy Sheriff Larry Griffin after being escorted to a hospital for x-rays, seized the keys and gun, attempted to fire the weapon, and fled.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Which legal framework governs the court’s review of the habeas petition?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), as it amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},203592,1788562127,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},687207017582,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Case 1:02-cv-00519-RAE-ESC Doc \\#45 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 13 Page ID\\#\u003CpageID>  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nWESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN  \nSOUTHERN DIVISION  \nGARFIELD LAWSON,  \nPetitioner, Hon. Richard Alan Enslen  \nv. Case No. 1:02-CV-519  \nDAVID GUNDY,  \nRespondent.  \n /  \nREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  \nThis matter is before the Court on Lawson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) authorizing United States Magistrate Judges to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition of prisoner petitions, the undersigned recommends that Lawson’s petition be denied.  \nBACKGROUND  \nOn August 31, 1997, Petitioner was an inmate at the Saginaw County Jail. (Trial Transcript, May 5, 1999, 12-17) . In the early morning hours of August 31, 1997, Petitioner was escorted by Deputy Sheriff Larry Griffin to a local hospital to have x-rays taken of his allegedly injured hand. (Tr. 17, 22-24) . After the x-rays were taken, Petitioner was permitted to use the bathroom. (Tr. 28-29) .  \nAfter using the bathroom, Petitioner attacked Griffin. (Tr. 29) . Petitioner knocked  \nCase 1:02-cv-00519-RAE-ESC Doc \\#45 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 13 Page ID\\#\u003CpageID>  \nGriffin to the ground and repeatedly struck him in the face and stomach. (Tr. 29-30, 49, 52, 66-67, 91-92, 105-07) . Petitioner then took Griffin’s keys and gun. (Tr. 29-31, 66-67, 92, 107) . Petitioner pointed the weapon at Griffin and attempted to fire it. (Tr. 32-33) . Petitioner was unable to fire the weapon, however, at which point he ran out ofthe hospital. (Tr. 33-35) .  \nPetitioner was observed removing his orange prison uniform as he ran away from the hospital. (Tr. 80-83, 118-20) . Police recovered Griffin’s weapon, Petitioner’s leg-irons (and the keys thereto), his orange jail uniform and jail-issued wristband in the general vicinity of the hospital.(Tr. 152-53, 156-58, 176-84) . Petitioner was recaptured seven days later. (Trial Transcript, May 5, 1999, 165-68; Trial Transcript, May 6, 1999, 6-9) . Petitioner testified at trial that he had no memory of the events in question. (Trial Transcript, May 6, 1999, 51-68) .  \nFollowing a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the following offenses: (1) breaking jail with violence or, in the alternative, assaulting an employee of place of confinement;  \n(2) disarming a peace officer; (3) armed robbery; (4) assault with intent to murder; (5) receiving, possessing, or concealing a stolen firearm; and (6) possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. (Trial Transcript, May 6, 1999, 68-69) . On the conviction for assaulting a jail employee, Petitioner was sentenced to serve fifteen years in prison. (Sentencing Transcript, June 7, 1999, 9) . For possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony, Petitioner was sentenced to two years in prison. (Tr. 9-10) . Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison for each of the remaining convictions. (Tr. 9) . Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals asserting the following claims:  \nI. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of other bad acts pursuant to MRE 404(b) when such evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative.  \nCase 1:02-cv-00519-RAE-ESC Doc \\#45 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 13 Page ID\\#\u003CpageID>  \nII. The trial court violated Defendant’s 14th Amendment right to due process by sentencing him based on inaccurate information that was contained in the presentence investigation report.  \nIII. Defense counsel was ineffective for failure to adhere to the requirements of MCL 768.20A to insure an instruction of diminished capacity and as a result violated Defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel.  \nThe Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction. People v. Lawson, No. 220406, Opinion (Mich. Ct. App., Apr. 20, 2001) . Asserting the same claims, Petitioner then moved in the Michigan Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The court denied Petitioner’s reque","cbCaikPcNxaXttrq","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikPcNxaXttrq","pdf",151531,13,"English","# Report and Recommendation\n## Background\n## Standard of Review","[{\"question\":\"What was the court’s recommendation regarding Lawson’s habeas corpus petition?\",\"answer\":\"The report and recommendation states that Lawson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied.\"},{\"question\":\"What incident formed the basis of Lawson’s underlying criminal convictions?\",\"answer\":\"On August 31, 1997, Lawson attacked Deputy Sheriff Larry Griffin after being escorted to a hospital for x-rays, seized the keys and gun, attempted to fire the weapon, and fled.\"},{\"question\":\"Which legal framework governs the court’s review of the habeas petition?\",\"answer\":\"The petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), as it amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254.\"}]","United States District Court - Western District of Michigan - Report and Recommendation | PDF",33]