Lincoln #237169 v. Bergh

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 40 , denying petitioner's petition 1 and denying certificate of appealability ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION D E N N IS DELMAR LINCOLN, P e t i t io n e r , v. D A V E BERGH, R e sp o n d e n t. _________________________/ C A S E NO. 2:06-cv-307 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h is matter is before the Court on a habeas corpus petition filed by Petitioner Dennis D e lm a r Lincoln pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 31, 2009, Magistrate J u d g e Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending th a t this Court deny the petition. (Dkt. No. 40.) Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on A u g u s t 14, 2009. (Dkt. No. 41.) This Court must review de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of th e Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P . 72(b). P etitio n er first objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that Respondent's a n sw e r to Petitioner's 2254 motion was timely filed. There was no error in this d eterm inatio n . Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases vests the district court w ith the power to order a response, and the power to order a response includes the power to d e te rm in e when the response should be submitted. On July 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge g ra n te d Respondent's motion for an extension of time to file its response (Dkt. No. 9), and o n appeal this Court affirmed the Magistrate's order (Dkt. No. 14). Respondent subsequently f ile d its answer within the time period required by this Court. Petitioner next objects to the Magistrate's determination that the state court's failure to notify Petitioner of his right to an attorney during Petitioner's arraignment violated P e titio n e r's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Petitioner does not cite, and the Court has n o t discovered, any "clearly established" Supreme Court precedent requiring a trial court to in f o rm a criminal defendant of his right to counsel during arraignment.1 Rather, all that is re q u ire d is that the defendant be "made sufficiently aware of his right to have counsel present d u rin g [post-arraignment] questioning, and of the possible consequences of a decision to f o rg o the aid of counsel." Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 292 (1988). This standard is m e t as long as the defendant has been apprised of his Miranda rights. Id.; see also Montejo v . Louisiana, 129 S. Ct. 2079, 2085 (2009). The evidence shows that prior to Petitioner's a r ra ig n m e n t Petitioner was informed of his Miranda rights, including his right to counsel, an d that Petitioner understood these rights. In addition, immediately following Petitioner's arraignm en t, and prior to the initiation of additional questioning, Petitioner was again advised Michigan law requires a trial court to inform a criminal defendant of his right to counsel during arraignment. Mich. Ct. R. 6.005(A), 6.104(E). However, 2254 relief is not available for violations of state law alone. 28 U.S.C. 2254. 2 1 o f his rights. Nevertheless, at no point did Petitioner invoke his right to an attorney with the c lar ity required to foreclose further interrogation. Thus, Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights w e re not violated by police interrogation that occurred after Petitioner's arraignment. Petitioner next objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that the statements he m a d e were not coerced or involuntary in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against selfin c rim in a tio n . The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. A criminal defendant may waive h i s Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent and right to an attorney, as long as the w a iv e r is "the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or d e c ep ti o n ," and it was "made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being a b a n d o n ed and the consequences of the decision to abandon it." Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 4 1 2 , 421 (1986). "Only if the `totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation' rev e a l both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court p ro p e rly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived." Id. (quoting Fare v. Michael C ., 442 U.S. 707, 725 (1979)). As discussed above, Petitioner was apprised of his Miranda rig h ts on at least three separate occasions, once immediately following Petitioner's arrest on D e c e m b e r 25 and twice on December 26, and Petitioner nevertheless displayed an eagerness to talk with the police with full knowledge of his rights. In addition, although Petitioner a rg u e s that the detectives used deception and coercion to get him to talk, there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim. Petitioner's incriminating statements were the product o f a valid waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights. 3 F in a lly, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that a certificate o f appealability should be denied. Again, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. No re a s o n a b le jurist would find this Court's assessment of Petitioner's constitutional claims d e b a ta b le or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A c c o r d i n g l y, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's objections to the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n (Dkt. No. 41) are DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 40) is A P P R O V E D and, combined with the discussion set forth herein, ADOPTED as the opinion o f the Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (Dkt. N o . 1) is DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Dated: March 9, 2010 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

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?