Warfield v. Horton

Filing 14

OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAMICHAEL WARFIELD,

2:21-CV-10463-TGB-RSW

Petitioner,
v.
CONNIE HORTON,
Respondent.

OPINION DENYING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner LaMichael Warfield was convicted after a jury trial in
the Macomb Circuit Court of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL
§ 750.520b, kidnapping, MCL § 750.349, and lesser offenses. In 2018,
Warfield was sentenced as a fourth-time habitual felony offender to 2550 years’ imprisonment. He is currently in custody in the Michigan
Department of Corrections.
Warfield filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state convictions on the following
grounds: (1) insufficient evidence was presented at trial, (2) the
prosecutor committed misconduct at trial, (3) the trial court erred in
allowing the prosecutor to use leading questions, (4) Warfield’s right to a
speedy trial was violated, and (5) the trial court incorrectly scored the
sentencing guidelines. ECF No. 1.
Because Warfield procedurally defaulted his claims on direct
review, the Petition will be DENIED.

I.

BACKGROUND
Warfield’s convictions stem from a violent incident that occurred at

the Macomb County Jail. The complainant, a fellow inmate, testified at
trial that Warfield and another prisoner forced him into Warfield’s cell
where he was threatened, sexually assaulted, and abused. ECF No. 1014, PageID.950–1161.
Warfield pursued a direct appeal from his conviction in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. His appellate counsel filed an appellate brief
that raised the five claims he now presents in his habeas petition:
I. Trial court erred when it denied a motion for directed
verdict where there was insufficient evidence to support the
criminal sexual charges and absent that evidence the
defendant could not be convicted of kidnapping and
conspiracy to kidnap or in the alternative there was
insufficient evidence to support the convictions.
II. Defendant’s convictions must be vacated because
defendant’s due process rights were violated when the
prosecutor with knowledge that a razor was not used in the
assault nonetheless elicited testimony from the complaining
witness that he was assaulted with a razor.
III. The trial court abused its discretion when over objection
it allowed the prosecutor to ask the complaining witness
leading questions regarding the disputed issue of penetration.
IV. The convictions must be vacated where defendant was
denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to the state and
federal constitutions.

2

V. The trial court erred in scoring OV1 and OV2 on the basis
that the defendant possessed a razor blade where the
complaining witness gave false testimony at trial.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on February
4, 2020. People v. Warfield, No. 342775, 2020 WL 557561, at *1 (Mich. Ct.
App. Feb. 4, 2020). Warfield attempted to file an application for leave to
appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court on October 1, 2020. But the
Michigan Supreme Court Clerk rejected his application the next day,
explaining that:
Unfortunately, we are not able to accept it for filing because
it was received beyond the due date. Specifically, the deadline
for filing an application in a criminal case is 56 days from the
date of the Court of Appeals’ decision. MCR 7.305(C)(2). Here,
the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on February 4, 2020.
During part of the 56-day period, the filing deadline was tolled
because of the Covid-19 pandemic but the application still had
to be filed on or before June 15.
ECF No. 1, PageID.47. Warfield did not appeal to the United States
Supreme Court or seek collateral review before the trial court. Rather, he
filed the instant petition for habeas relief.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A prisoner who is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state

court may file a habeas petition in federal court only on the ground that
he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). But a prisoner seeking federal habeas relief
must first exhaust his state court remedies by fairly presenting each
3

federal constitutional claim in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b);
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991).
In Michigan, prisoners must raise their claims in both the Michigan
Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court before seeking federal
habeas corpus relief. See Manning v. Alexander, 912 F.2d 878, 881 (6th
Cir. 1990). The petitioner bears the burden of showing that state court
remedies have been exhausted. Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418, 1420 n.3
(6th Cir. 1987).
Where there is no longer a procedural mechanism to present
unexhausted claims to the state courts, claims are procedurally defaulted
and barred from federal habeas review. See Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S.
1, 9 (2012) (“[A] federal court will not review the merits of claims,
including constitutional claims, that a state court declined to hear
because the prisoner failed to abide by a state procedural rule.”).
Procedural default results where “(1) the petitioner failed to comply with
a state procedural rule that is applicable to the petitioner’s claim; (2) the
state courts actually enforced the procedural rule in the petitioner’s case;
and (3) the procedural forfeiture is an ‘adequate and independent’ state
ground foreclosing review of a federal constitutional claim.” McKinney v.
Horton, 826 F. App’x 468, 472 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Willis v. Smith,
351 F.3d 741, 744 (6th Cir. 2003)).
Nonetheless, a prisoner may still obtain federal review of a
defaulted claim by showing “cause for the default and prejudice from a
4

violation of federal law,” Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. at 10, or showing
that he is “actually innocent,” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 537
(1986).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Warfield’s Claims Are Procedurally Defaulted
Respondent asserts that review of Warfield’s claims is procedurally
barred because he can no longer satisfy the exhaustion requirement. ECF
No. 9, PageID.135.
Warfield raised all his habeas claims on direct appeal in the
Michigan Court of Appeals. The court affirmed in an unpublished opinion
issued on February 4, 2020. When the order issued, Warfield had 56 days,
or until March 31, 2020, to seek review in the Michigan Supreme Court.
Mich. Ct. R. 7.305(C)(2). The Michigan Supreme Court tolled the filing
deadline as of March 24, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby
allowing Warfield to seek timely review while the administrative order
remained in effect. See Mich. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2020-4. But on
June 8, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court rescinded the administrative
order, and the time began running again for Warfield to file his appeal.
See Mich. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 2020-16. While Warfield only had
seven days remaining to file his application for leave to appeal, he waited
close to four additional months to do so, on October 1, 2020. The Supreme
Court Clerk decided to reject the application and return it to Warfield
because it was filed too late in violation of Rule 7.305(C)(2) even
5

considering the tolled deadline because of the COVID-19 pandemic. See
ECF No. 1, PageID.47.
Thus, because Michigan declined to address Warfield’s claims
because he failed to meet a state procedural requirement that the state
actually enforced, this federal Court is barred from reviewing the
procedurally defaulted claims. See McKinney v. Horton, 826 F. App’x 468,
472 (6th Cir. 2020) (describing requirements for procedural default); see
also Bell v. Smith, 114 F. Supp. 2d 633, 637 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2000)
(Gadola, J.) (finding habeas claims procedurally defaulted where
petitioner did not timely seek review on direct appeal to the Michigan
Supreme Court, which rejected his application for leave to appeal filed
beyond the 56-day time period for seeking such review); Rupert v.
Berghuis, 619 F. Supp. 2d 363, 367 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2008) (finding
that habeas petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies as a result of
his failure to file timely appeal to Michigan Supreme Court).
B. Cause & Prejudice
To overcome the procedural default, a petitioner must show cause
for noncompliance with the state procedural requirements and actual
prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation. Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). The petitioner must point to “some
external impediment” that frustrated his ability to comply with the
state’s procedural rule. Murray, 477 U.S. at 498. “Habeas petitioners
cannot rely on conclusory assertions of cause and prejudice to overcome
6

procedural default; they must present affirmative evidence or argument
as to the precise cause and prejudice produced.” Lundgren v. Mitchell,
440 F.3d 754, 764 (6th Cir. 2006).
While Warfield did not file a Reply attempting to show cause and
prejudice, he briefly explained in his Petition his failure to timely seek
review in the Michigan Supreme Court, stating, “missed deadline due to
COVID.” ECF No. 1, PageID.2. Although the COVID-19 pandemic was
an extraordinary circumstance, it “does not automatically warrant
equitable tolling for a petitioner who seeks it on that basis.” United States
v. West, 578 F. Sup. 3d 962, 967 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2022) (quoting United
States v. Henry, 2020 WL 7332657, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2020)).
To warrant equitable tolling, “[t]he petitioner must establish that
he was pursuing his rights diligently and that the COVID-19 pandemic
specifically prevented him from filing his motion” or petition. Id. (quoting
Henry, 2020 WL 7332657, at *4) (emphasis in original). A petitioner’s
“vague and generalized contentions do not begin to demonstrate that the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with his ability to file a
timely [petition].” Jordan v. Carl, 2022 WL 2998379, at *4 (E.D. Mich.
July 28, 2022) (Borman, J.) (citing to West, 578 F. Sup. 3d at 967).
Here, Warfield’s terse statement that he missed the deadline “due
to COVID” is insufficient to establish cause. It provides no specific
reasons other than citing to the COVID-19 pandemic, which had already
permitted an extension of the deadline. The Michigan Supreme Court
7

administrative order accounted for the filing difficulties generally caused
by the pandemic by tolling deadlines from March 24 to June 8, 2020.
Despite this, Warfield waited until October 1, 2020, to attempt to file his
appeal. If there was a COVID-related reason particular to Warfield that
prevented him from seeking timely review despite the expanded time
limit granted by the administrative order, he did not offer it. See, e.g.,
Holt v. Mays, 2023 WL 2416395, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 13, 2023) (finding
petitioner’s “bald assertion” that he failed to exhaust the issues in state
court because of the “Covid-19 Pandemic” failed to show cause and
prejudice to excuse procedural default in the absence of specific factual
support); but see Crawford v. Morrison, 2020 WL 6144433, at *4 (W.D.
Mich. Oct. 20, 2020) (granting equitable tolling where the MDOC lost
petitioner’s legal property while transferring him to a different
correctional facility because he was diagnosed with COVID-19, forcing
him to “start over” three weeks before the deadline expired).
Warfield therefore failed to demonstrate cause to excuse his
default, and the Court need not address the issue of prejudice. See Smith
v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986) (“We need not determine whether
petitioner has carried his burden of showing actual prejudice from the
allegedly improper admission of Dr. Pile’s testimony, for we think it selfevident that he has failed to demonstrate cause for his noncompliance
with Virginia’s procedures.”).

8

C. Actual Innocence
Because Warfield failed to establish “cause and prejudice” to excuse
his failure to comply with the state procedural requirements, he may
obtain review of his constitutional claims “only if he falls within the
narrow class of cases . . . implicating a fundamental miscarriage of
justice,” see Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 314–15 (1995), such as when “a
constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who
is actually innocent,” Murray, 477 U.S. at 537. To be credible, a claim of
actual innocence requires a petitioner to support the allegations of
constitutional error with new reliable evidence that was not presented at
trial. Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324. Actual innocence means “factual
innocence, not mere legal insufficiency.” Bousley v. United States, 523
U.S. 614, 623 (1998). Here, Warfield failed to meet the actual innocence
standard because he presented no new evidence of his actual innocence.
Therefore, all of Warfield’s claims are procedurally defaulted, and
Warfield established neither exception for bypassing the default. The
petition will therefore be denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Warfield’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Court FURTHER FINDS that reasonable jurists would not
debate this Court’s conclusion that Warfield’s claims are procedurally
defaulted, so the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See Slack
9

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If
Warfield nonetheless chooses to appeal, he may proceed in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2025

/s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10