Wynn v. Campbell

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 14 Application Seeking the Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability by Edward V. Wynn. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWARD V. WYNN,
Petitioner,
Case No. 17-10204
v.
Honorable Sean F. Cox
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent.
___________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION SEEKING THE
ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILIY [ECF NO. 14]
Petitioner Edward V. Wynn has appealed the Court’s opinion and judgment
denying his pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The habeas petition challenged
Petitioner's Michigan convictions for one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(c), and one count of unlawful imprisonment, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.349b(1)(c). Petitioner argued in his habeas petition that: the trial
court erred by admitting evidence about his medications and prior domestic violence; the
evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions; the prosecutor withheld
exculpatory impeachment about the complaining witness’s arrest; and his trial and
appellate attorneys deprived him of effective assistance. The Court found no merit in
these claims and denied the habeas petition. Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s
application for a certificate of appealability.
The Court declined to grant a certificate of appealability in its dispositive opinion.
Accordingly, the Court construes Petitioner’s current application for a certificate of

appealability as a motion for reconsideration. Under this District’s Local Rules, the Court
generally
will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present
the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by
which the Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on
the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.
LR 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F. Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D.
Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718
(E.D. Mich. 2001)).
Petitioner has asked the Court to issue a certificate of appealability on the following
claims: the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prescription medications; the
prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence that the complaining witness was arrested
days before the incident giving rise to the charges against Petitioner; and defense
counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and
undermined confidence in the outcome of Petitioner’s trial. The Court adjudicated the
substantive merits of these claims in its dispositive opinion. The Court stated that the
alleged evidentiary error regarding Petitioner’s medications was not so fundamentally
unfair as to violate Petitioner’s right to due process and that state court’s finding of
harmless error was objectively reasonable.
The Court rejected Petitioner’s claim about the prosecutor’s alleged withholding of
evidence because the evidence was not material. The Court also determined that the
state court’s conclusion -- that the outcome of the proceedings would not have been
different if the evidence had been disclosed to the defense – was reasonable.
2

Finally, regarding defense counsel, the Court concluded from the record that
counsel’s alleged shortcomings did not amount to deficient performance and that any
deficiency did not prejudice the defense. Further, given the double deference due to
Petitioner’s ineffectiveness claim on habeas review, the Court stated that Petitioner was
not entitled to relief on the claim.
Petitioner has failed to convince the Court that it made an obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain error in its rejection of his habeas claims. Accordingly,
the Court denies Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability regarding his
evidentiary claim about his medications, his prosecutorial-misconduct claim, and his
claims regarding trial counsel.
Petitioner has also asked the Court to grant a certificate of appealability on his
claim that there was insufficient evidence of false imprisonment.

Additionally, he

contends that charging him with false imprisonment violated his Fifth Amendment right
not to be placed in double jeopardy.
Petitioner admits that he did not make the double-jeopardy argument in his habeas
petition.

He also did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C.

§2254(b)(1) by first raising the double-jeopardy claim in state court. Both the Michigan
Court of Appeals and this Court, moreover, determined that the prosecution presented
sufficient evidence to support the false-imprisonment charge. Therefore, Petitioner is not
entitled to a certificate of appealability on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
on the false-imprisonment charge or on his double jeopardy claim.
In conclusion, Petitioner has presented some of the same issues that the Court
previously adjudicated, and he has not demonstrated that the Court made a palpable

3

error in rejecting those claims.

Petitioner’s double-jeopardy claim is a new and

unexhausted claim, which the Court is not required to address. Accordingly, the Court
denies Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability.

Dated: January 14, 2020

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

4