Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Dennis Wills v. Charles Egeler, Warden of State Prison of Southern Michigan

532 F.2d 1058

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1976-03-16
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a “[d]etermination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.”
  • denying habeas relief because 8 “[d]etermination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of 9 the state courts, not the federal judiciary.”
  • a “[djetermi-nation of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary”
  • “Determination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.”
  • “Determination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under 17 state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.”
  • “Determination of whether a state court is vested with 17 jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.”
  • “Determination of 10 whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, 11 not the federal judiciary.”
  • “Determination of whether 17 a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state 18 courts, not the federal judiciary”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dennis Wills v. Charles Egeler, Warden of State Prison of Southern Michigan. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
76 opinions
WILLS v. EGELER,532 F.2d 1058(6th Cir. 1976)
DENNIS WILLS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES EGELER, WARDEN OF STATE
PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.
No. 75-1611.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 1976.
Decided March 16, 1976.
Dennis Wills, pro se.Page 1059

Frank J. Kelley, Atty, Gen. of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Jann C. Ryan, Lansing, Mich., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Dennis E. Wills, petitioner-appellant, is serving a sentence of eight to fifteen years in a Michigan State Prison for armed robbery. His sentence was imposed by the Circuit Court of Macomb County on March 19, 1974 after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty.

[2] District Judge Charles W. Joiner denied the application of Wills for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

[3] Wills contends that the state district court had no jurisdiction to bind him over for trial and therefore the state trial court acquired no jurisdiction to try and convict him. For this position he relies upon ArticleIV, §24of the Constitution of Michigan, which provides: "No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title."

[4] The Supreme Court of Michigan rejected this contention inPeople v. Milton,393 Mich. 234,224 N.W.2d 266(1974), holding that the state district courts have the requisite criminal jurisdiction and that the statute conferring jurisdiction did not violate Article IV, § 24 of the State Constitution.

[5] Federal habeas corpus relief can be granted only for violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.28 U.S.C. § 2254;Combs, v. Tennessee,530 F.2d 695(6th Cir. 1976). The constitutional provision relied upon by Wills appears in the Constitution of Michigan, not the Constitution of the United States. Determination of whether a state court is vested with jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.United States ex rel. Herrington v.Mancusi,415 F.2d 205(2nd Cir. 1969).

[6] This case came on to be heard pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 3(e).1

[7] The court concludes that the appeal is frivolous and completely without merit. Sixth Circuit Rule 9.

[8] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
  1. (e) Docket Control. In the interest of docket control, the chief judge may from time to time, in his discretion, appoint a panel or panels to review pending cases for appropriate assignment or disposition under Rules 7(e), 8 or 9 or any other rule of this court. ↩