Fisher v. Miles

Background

Frederick Duane Fisher, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody based on a violation of federal law. Fisher argued that the Minnesota sentencing court improperly calculated his criminal-history score by assigning two points for his 2003 federal assault conviction. He contended that the conviction should have received one point instead.

Fisher had pleaded guilty to first-degree driving while impaired. The sentencing court imposed a 63-month sentence after declining to address Fisher’s criminal-history-score argument. The Minnesota Court of Appeals later ruled that the sentencing court had abused its discretion by failing to determine Fisher’s criminal-history score before sentencing, but it remanded the matter for further development of the record rather than deciding the correct score. The Minnesota Supreme Court declined review.

Federal Habeas Petition and Report

A magistrate judge recommended summary denial of Fisher’s petition. The recommendation stated that the criminal-history calculation presented an issue of Minnesota law, which could not support federal habeas relief, and that Fisher had not adequately presented any federal-law argument to the Minnesota courts.

Fisher objected. He argued that the state’s failure to establish that his federal conviction was equivalent to a Minnesota assault statute violated federal constitutional protections. He also requested a certificate of appealability, which is required for an appeal from the final order in a federal habeas proceeding.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation anew because Fisher was representing himself and had made objections that, although similar to his petition, were slightly different.

The court held that Fisher’s challenge to the criminal-history score was a matter of Minnesota law. Federal habeas relief is available only when a person is held in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court therefore concluded that the alleged sentencing-score miscalculation did not state a claim for federal habeas relief.

The court also addressed Fisher’s reference to a federal constitutional violation. It found that Fisher raised that federal claim for the first time in his objection, that the claim was not sufficiently definite, and that the court found no support for it in the Constitution. In addition, Fisher had not exhausted the claim because neither his Minnesota Court of Appeals appeal nor his Minnesota Supreme Court petition alleged a violation of federal or constitutional law. Exhaustion requires a state prisoner to present a federal claim to the state courts before asking a federal court to review it.

Disposition

The court overruled Fisher’s objection and adopted the report and recommendation. It dismissed Fisher’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. It also did not grant a certificate of appealability, finding that Fisher had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and that reasonable judges could not debate the result.