Williams v. Campbell
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying Certificate of Appealability, and Granting Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:16-cv-10583
Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent.
________________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
GRANTING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Petitioner Michael Lee Williams filed this application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 25, 2013, Petitioner was
convicted after a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court of three counts
of armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529, two counts of possession of
a firearm during commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b, and
carrying a concealed weapon. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227. These
convictions resulted in a controlling sentence of 15 to 30 years for one of the
armed robbery convictions, and an additional consecutive 2 year term for the
felony-firearm convictions.
The petition raises two claims: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct
during closing argument, and (2) there was insufficient evidence presented to
sustain Petitioner’s armed robbery conviction against one of the victims. The
Court will deny the petition because the claims are without merit. The Court
will also deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability, but it will grant Petitioner
permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
I. Background
This Court recites verbatim the relevant facts relied upon by the
Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on habeas review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413
(6th Cir. 2009):
On September 1, 2012, Joshua Johnson and several
men—including defendant—drove around Detroit, Michigan, for
the purpose of seeking out people to rob. Between 6:30 and 6:45
p.m., the men spotted Albert Andrews exiting a liquor store. When
Andrews attempted to enter his car, defendant and another man
pointed handguns at him. Andrews attempted to reach his own
pistol inside the car, but he was overpowered by the group.
During the struggle, defendant took a gold chain that
Andrews was wearing, and another male grabbed the pistol from
inside the vehicle. The attackers ran away, but Andrews saw them
enter a green jeep. In a photograph lineup conducted
approximately a month later, Andrews identified defendant as one
of the attackers. At trial, Johnson admitted to driving the jeep, and
Jonathan Colvin testified that he and defendant participated in the
robbery.
On September 8, 2012, defendant, Johnson, and Colvin met
again for the purpose of committing a robbery. At approximately
8:30 p.m., Johnson drove defendant and Colvin to Dearborn,
2
Michigan. He dropped them off in a residential area and they
proceeded on foot. Salwa Bazzi, Mirvat Hammoud, and two other
women were sitting on the front porch of Hammoud’s house when
they saw defendant and Colvin approaching. Defendant and
Colvin went onto the porch, drew their handguns, and demanded
that Bazzi hand over her cellular phone. Defendant grabbed
Hammoud by the head and dragged her across the porch.
Hammoud was loudly screaming throughout the encounter, and
the neighbors started to come out of their homes. Then defendant
and Colvin ran away after taking Bazzi’s cell phone.
The police were able to track Bazzi’s cellular phone to a
liquor store in Detroit, where they apprehended defendant, Colvin,
and Johnson. At the time of the arrest, the police found defendant
in possession of a handgun and Bazzi’s cell phone. After he was
arrested, defendant confessed to the Dearborn robbery.
People v. Williams, No. 316429, 316762, 2014 WL 5066396, at *1 (Mich. Ct.
App. Oct. 9, 2014).
Following his conviction and sentence, Petitioner filed a claim of appeal
in the Michigan Court of Appeals. His appellate brief raised the following
claims:
I. Williams is entitled to a new trial where the closing arguments
of the prosecutor were improper.
II. Williams is entitled to a new trial or entry of a conviction for the
lesser offense of either attempted armed robbery or assault with
the intent to commit armed robbery where there was insufficient
evidence to find for the conviction of armed robbery as to Ms.
Hammoud.
3
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an
unpublished opinion. People v. Williams, No. 316429 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 9,
2014). Petitioner subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal in the
Michigan Supreme Court which raised the same claims as he raised in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the
application because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should
be reviewed. People v. Williams, 863 N.W.2d 322 (Mich. 2015) (table).
II. Standard of Review
This habeas petition is reviewed under the standards set forth in the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996). Under AEDPA, a federal court
cannot grant habeas relief with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits
in a state-court proceeding unless the state adjudication of the claim either:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).
“A state court’s decision is ‘contrary to’ . . . clearly established law if it
‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court
4
cases]’ or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from
a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different
from [this] precedent.’” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (per
curiam) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). “[T]he
‘unreasonable application’ prong of the statute permits a federal habeas court
to ‘grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal
principle from [the Supreme] Court but unreasonably applies that principle to
the facts’ of petitioner’s case.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003)
(quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413). “A state court’s determination that a claim
lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could
disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652,
664 (2004). “Section 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a guard
against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a
substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal. . . . As a condition for
obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that
the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so
lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and
5
comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded
disagreement.” Id. at 786-87 (internal quotation omitted).
To obtain relief under § 2254(d)(2), a petitioner must show an
unreasonable determination of fact and that the resulting state court decision
was “based on” that unreasonable determination. Rice v. White, 660 F.3d 242,
250 (6th Cir. 2012).
III. Discussion
A. Procedural Default
Respondent contends that Petitioner’s first claim is procedurally
defaulted because the alleged error was not preserved in the trial court. Under
the procedural default doctrine, a federal habeas court will not review a
question of federal law if a state court’s decision rests on a substantive or
procedural state law ground that is independent of the federal question and
is adequate to support the judgment. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S.
722, 729 (1991). However, procedural default is not a jurisdictional bar to
review of a habeas petition on the merits. See Trest v. Cain, 522 U.S. 87, 89
(1997). Additionally, “federal courts are not required to address a
procedural-default issue before deciding against the petitioner on the merits.”
Hudson v. Jones, 351 F. 3d 212, 215 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Lambrix v.
Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997)). It may be more economical for the
6
habeas court to simply review the merits of the petitioner’s claims, “for
example, if it were easily resolvable against the habeas petitioner, whereas
the procedural-bar issue involved complicated issues of state law.” Lambrix,
520 U.S. at 525. In the present case, the Court deems it more efficient to
proceed directly to the merits of Petitioner’s first claim.
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct
Petitioner’s first claim asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct
during closing argument. He argues that the prosecutor informed the jury that
there was no such thing as attempted armed robbery under Michigan law,
thereby undermining any argument that Petitioner might be guilty of that
lesser offense.
The “clearly established Federal law” relevant to a habeas court's review
of a prosecutorial misconduct claim is the Supreme Court’s decision in Darden
v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986). Parker v. Matthews,
U.S.
, 132
S. Ct. 2148, 2153, 183 L. Ed. 2d 32, (June 11, 2012). In Darden, the Supreme
Court held that a “prosecutor’s improper comments will be held to violate the
Constitution only if they ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the
resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” Id. (quoting Donnelly v.
DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)).
7
The record indicates that at the beginning of the prosecutor’s closing
argument he outlined the elements of armed robbery. Dkt. 7-6, at 101. He
indicated that (1) the defendant must have used force or violence, and (2) he
must have used it in the course of committing or attempting to commit a
larceny. Id., at 101-2. The prosecutor explained:
What does that mean? Well, that very first part includes acts
that occur in attempt to commit a larceny. What that means is
even if somebody is attempting to commit a larceny and they’re
using a weapon to do that and they’re using force to do that, and
you believe that happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Let’s just
say for the academic side for the moment. Then they’re guilty of
armed robbery whether they got something from that person or
not.
In Michigan what this is telling you is there is no such thing
as attempted armed robbery. If you try to rob somebody, you
robbed them as far as the law is concerned.
Id, at 102.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found that this argument was not
improper because it was an accurate statement of the requirements of
Michigan law:
Recently, our Supreme Court held that “attempted robbery
or attempted armed robbery with an incomplete larceny is now
sufficient to sustain a conviction under the robbery or armed
robbery statutes, respectively.” People v. Williams, 491 Mich. 164,
172 (2012). The core of the prosecutor’s statement was that
defendant’s attempt to steal from the victims was sufficient for an
armed robbery conviction, consistent with Williams, supra.
Further, any confusion was cleared up when the jury was properly
8
instructed regarding the elements of armed robbery. Thus, any
error was cured, and we find no basis for reversal. Grayer, 252
Mich. App. at 357.
Williams, No. 316429, at *4.
This Court is bound by the state appellate’s court statement about the
requirements of state law. The Sixth Circuit repeatedly has recognized “‘that
a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct
appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas
corpus.’” Stumpf v. Robinson, 722 F.3d 739, 746 n.6 (6th Cir. 2013)(quoting
Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005)). Because the Michigan Court of
Appeals found that the prosecutor’s challenged remarks were a correct
statement of Michigan law, there was no misconduct to render Petitioner’s trial
fundamentally unfair in violation of due process. Petitioner’s first claim is
therefore without merit.
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Petitioner next claims that insufficient evidence was offered at trial to
support his conviction for armed robbery against Hammoud because there
was no evidence presented that he was able to get away with any of her
property. This claim is frivolous because it hinges on the same incorrect
interpretation of state law discussed above.
9
To be guilty of armed robbery under Michigan law, among the other
elements, the prosecutor need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant attempted to take and remove another’s property. Williams, 491
Mich. at 171-172. There is no requirement that the defendant complete the
larceny. Id. Petitioner’s argument to the contrary inappropriately invites the
Court to superintend the Michigan courts in determining what is essential to
establish an element of its armed robbery statute. See Powell v. Berghuis,
560 Fed. Appx. 442, 449 (6th Cir. Mich. 2013). “To say that state law ‘rightly
understood’ requires proof of [a particular factual predicate], and that the
evidence is insufficient because the prosecution failed to establish this, is to
[impermissibly] use . . a back door to review questions of substantive law.”
Sanford v. Yukins, 288 F.3d 855, 860-62 (6th Cir. 2002).
Because Petitioner’s second claim hinges on an incorrect interpretation
of state law that was rejected by the state courts on direct appeal, the claim
is not cognizable in this action. Id., 288 F.3d at 862.
As both of Petitioner’s claims are without merit, the petition will be
denied.
10
IV. Conclusion
Before Petitioner may appeal this Court’s dispositive decision, a
certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. ‘ 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R.
App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
‘ 2253(c)(2). When a court rejects a habeas claim on the merits, the
substantial showing threshold is met if Petitioner demonstrates that
reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claim debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484-85 (2000). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that . .
. jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
(2003). In applying that standard, a district court may not conduct a full merits
review, but must limit its examination to a threshold inquiry into the underlying
merit of Petitioner’s claims. Id. at 336-37. “The district court must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” Rules Governing ‘ 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll.’ 2254.
Petitioner has not demonstrated a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right with respect to either of his claims. A reasonable jurists
11
would notdebate whether the Court correctly denied relief with respect to
these claims. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
The Court will, however, grant Petitioner permission to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis because an appeal could be taken in good faith.
See Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 2d 750, 764 (E.D. Mich. 2002); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App.24 (a).
V
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: October 28, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
parties/counsel of record on October 28, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?