Opinion
Docket No. 145116. COA No. 304900.
2013-05-24
Patrick J. KENNEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Warden Raymond BOOKER, Defendant–Appellee.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 1109047.
Order
On order of the Court, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we AFFIRM the April 3, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. Save for limited exceptions, “[a]n action for habeas corpus ... may be brought by or on the behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within this state under any pretense whatsoever.” MCL 600.4307. Habeas relief is appropriate only where a habeas petitioner can show a radical defect that renders a proceeding or judgment void. In re Stone, 295 Mich. 207, 209, 294 N.W. 156 (1940). Habeas corpus does not function as a writ of error, In re Joseph, 206 Mich. 659, 661–662, 173 N.W. 358 (1919), and it “is not available to test questions of evidence,” In re Stone, 295 Mich. 207, 212, 294 N.W. 156. The plaintiff here challenges the legal standard employed by the Parole Board to revoke his parole and claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish an actual violation of parole. These alleged errors do not constitute radical defects that render void the proceedings of the Parole Board. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to habeas relief.