While the petition was not time-barred, the court concluded petitioner’s claims lacked merit, holding, inter alia, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because he did not show a reasonable probability he could have prevailed at trial on his intoxication defense or he would have received a lesser sentence. Petitioner’s convictions arose from his driving while intoxicated and engaging the police in a chase when they tried to stop him, which ended in the death of another motorist. He pleaded nolo contendere to second-degree murder, fleeing and eluding resulting in death, OUIL causing death, and being a fourth felony habitual offender. Petitioner alleged, inter alia, his plea was invalid because it was not knowing and voluntary, and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his plea and sentencing. He argued counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or pursue an intoxication defense, counsel’s failure to explain this defense to him or to assert it rendered his plea involuntary, and he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea. The factual basis provided by the prosecutor at the time of the plea, and petitioner’s own description of the offense, established petitioner was driving at high rates of speed to elude police. One expert estimated his speed reached between 81 and 91 mph. He also disregarded several red traffic lights. Petitioner’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle while traveling at an estimated 81 mph in a 25-mph zone. He had a BAC of .095 percent. The court held the “facts established at the plea hearing demonstrated the mental state for second-degree murder, particularly because petitioner’s intoxication was included.” Counsel was not ineffective for failing to press a voluntary intoxication defense since such a defense would have failed – second-degree murder and fleeing and eluding police are general intent crimes for which voluntary intoxication is not a defense. Petitioner’s other claims also failed, and his petition was denied. Earl v. Laflex, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, case no. 04-10014, released September 30, 2007.