RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 18a0188p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LOREN T. ROBINSON, ┐ Petitioner-Appellant, │ │ > No. 16-2067 v. │ │ │ JEFFREY WOODS, Warden, │ Respondent-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette. No. 2:14-cv-00050—R. Allan Edgar, District Judge. Argued: June 7, 2018 Decided and Filed: August 24, 2018 Before: BOGGS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.* _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Kristin Cope, BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, for Appellant. Linus Banghart-Linn, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Kristin Cope, BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, for Appellant. Linus Banghart-Linn, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. *The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. No. 16-2067 Robinson v. Woods Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment’s jury guarantee to mean that “[a]ny fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime . . . must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.” Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103 (2013). In this appeal, petitioner Loren Robinson seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that the Michigan trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by using judge- found facts to score sentencing variables that increased his mandatory minimum sentence. Because Alleyne clearly established that mandatory minimum sentences may only be increased on the basis of facts found by a jury or admitted by a criminal defendant, Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 108, the Michigan Court of Appeals’ disposition of Robinson’s case “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, conditionally grant Robinson’s petition limited to his sentence, and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the state sentencing court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the United States Constitution. I. Petitioner and two of his cohorts sold the victim a large amount of crack cocaine on credit, beat the victim when he was unable to repay petitioner, and, eventually, extorted from the victim’s parents the roughly $1,000 petitioner felt he was owed for the drugs. As a result, a Michigan jury convicted petitioner of extortion, M.C.L. § 750.213, delivery of a controlled substance, § 333.7413(2), unlawful imprisonment, § 750.349b, and aggravated assault, § 750.81a(1). People v. Robinson, No. 303236, 2013 WL 3942387, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. July 30, 2013) (per curiam). As is standard in Michigan criminal practice, the Michigan Department of Corrections prepared, and the trial court considered, a “Presentence Investigation Report” (PSIR) in No. 16-2067 Robinson v. Woods Page 3 conjunction with petitioner’s sentencing. See, e.g., ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals