Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
May 28, 2013

MSC reaffirms that habeas relief is only appropriate where there is a radical defect in the underlying proceeding or judgment

After originally granting leave to appeal in Kenney v. Booker, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed on Friday the Court of Appeals' judgment denying the petitioner's complaint for habeas corpus. Our prior post concerning the initial grant of leave to appeal can be found here. The Court found that, although almost any prisoner may bring a habeas corpus action, relief is appropriate only if there is a radical defect that renders a proceeding or judgment void. The Court also noted that habeas corpus 'does not function as a writ of error', or as a 'test [for] questions of evidence'. Applying these standards to this petitioner's case, the Court concluded that the allegations that the Parole Board employed an inappropriate legal standard to revoke the petitioner's parole and that the evidence was insufficient to establish an actual parole violation does not rise to the level of a radical defect. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -