Habeas corpus; Moses v Department of Corr; Radical jurisdictional defect; Alleged fraud by court officers & the prosecutor; Fabrication of evidence; Whether the trial court should have conducted an in-person evidentiary hearing before dismissing the petition; Moot pending motions

The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing petitioner-Hornsby’s habeas complaint “without an evidentiary hearing because it determined, based on [his] allegations of error, that there was no radical jurisdictional defect in [its] authority to charge, try, convict, and sentence him.” He was convicted of armed robbery, CCW, and felony-firearm in 2000. He asserted he was “entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because a radical jurisdictional defect was created when court officers and the prosecutor allegedly committed fraud in fabricating evidence to charge, convict, and sentence him.” He specifically contended on appeal that “the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing his petition without first holding an in-person evidentiary hearing to allow him to demonstrate how his convictions were obtained through fraud.” The court disagreed. It determined that “a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate means for Hornsby to seek exoneration. His claim that his convictions were achieved through fraud and deception by the Genesee County Prosecutor’s Office does not divest the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction.” The court noted that he did “not allege he was unaware of the charges he was facing and unable to put forth a defense, nor does he allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel at any point in the pre-bindover stage of his criminal proceedings that would constitute a radical jurisdictional defect.” It found that the trial court correctly dismissed his “complaint for a writ of habeas corpus because his judgment of sentence ‘remains a valid judgment, allegations of fraud notwithstanding,’ and that ‘the question of whether the government engaged in fraud must be answered in the first instance by the trial court.’ Any challenge to the evidence used to charge, convict, and sentence Hornsby is more appropriately reserved for a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court under MCR 6.500 et seq.” As to the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to MCR 3.303(D)(1), a trial “court need not even entertain responsive pleadings regarding a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus if ‘it appears that the prisoner is not entitled to relief.’” Finally, the court found that all pending motions in the trial court “were appropriately dismissed as moot.” Affirmed.