Bass v. Bauman

• Decision Date: 10 December 2013
• Docket Number: Case Number 2:11-CV-15536
• Parties: RAFAEL BASS #652470, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

RAFAEL BASS #652470, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.

Case Number 2:11-CV-15536

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: December 10, 2013

Honorable George Caram Steeh

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND

DENYING PERMISSION TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This matter is before the Court on PetitionerRafael Bass's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.Petitioner was convicted in the Wayne Circuit Court after a jury trial of first-degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.316, and commission of a felony with a firearm.MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, to be served consecutively with a two-year term for the firearm conviction.The petition claims that: (1) insufficient evidence was presented at trial to show that Petitioner caused the victim's death; and (2)Petitioner's right to confrontation was denied by the prosecutor's references to information from a confidential informant.The Court finds that Petitioner's claims are without merit.Therefore, the petition will be denied.The Court will also deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability and deny permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

I.Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner's conviction arises from a botched car-jacking in which the victim, sixty-one year old Paul Singleton, was killed.

The evidence presented at trial showed that the victim was seated in his parked car in a gas station parking lot.An eyewitness, Kenneth Lewis, was walking in front of the car.He saw two men who had just emerged from a green van approach Singleton's car.The shorter of the two men tapped a handgun on the side window of the car.Lewis went into the station and told the clerk to call 9-1-1.

From inside the station, Lewis saw the victim struggle for control of the gun.The man fired the gun several times, but the victim managed to close his car door.Meanwhile, the taller man ran in front of the victim's car and fired shots through the windshield.The two men then got back in their van and drove off.The victim, meanwhile, also drove off at a high rate of speed.

Within a half-mile of the station, Singleton crashed into a tree.An eyewitness to the crash testified that it looked like he was going "about a hundred miles an hour" before his car jumped the curb.

Singleton had been shot twice in the lower leg.Neither bullet hit any bone or major artery, but both caused bleeding that if left untreated were potentially fatal.The injuries from the crash, however, were much more serious.His liver was lacerated and he had completely bit through his tongue.Singleton had no pulse at the scene.

The Michigan State Police produced enhanced still photos taken from the gas station security camera.The photos were disseminated to the media, and as a result, police got tips that identified co-defendantDremaris Jackson as one of the gunmen.

Thirteen days after the incident, Lewis identified Jackson from a photographic array as the shorter man who stood on the side of the victim's car.Months later, Lewis identified a photograph of Petitioner as the taller man involved in the shooting.

Petitioner spoke with police and told police them Jackson was the only perpetrator, and he was an unarmed bystander.

Quantrez Sawyer testified that he drove Petitioner and Bass to the gas station, dropped them off, and then drove away with them about five minutes later when they came running back.

The jury found Petitioner guilty and he was subsequently sentenced as indicated above.

Petitioner then filed a claim of appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals.He was appointed appellate counsel who filed an appellate brief that raised the same claims that Petitioner presents in the current petition.

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished per curiam opinion affirming Petitioner's convictions. People v. Bass, 2010 WL 1817362(Mich. App.May 6, 2010).Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, raising the same issues.The Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner's application for leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed.People v. Bass,788 N.W.2d 437(Mich.2010)(table).

II.Standard of Review

Review of this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA").Pursuant to the AEDPA, Petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claims on the merits-

(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).

A decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06(2000).An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case."Id. at 409.A federal habeas court may not "issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly."Id. at 410-11.

The Supreme Court has explained that "[a]federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our federal system."Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340(2003).The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'"Renico v. Lett, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 1862, 176 L. Ed. 2d 678(2010)((quotingLindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n. 7(1997);Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24(2002)(per curiam))."[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, 131 S.Ct.770, 786(2011)(citingYarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664(2004)).The Supreme Court has emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable."Id. (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75(2003).Furthermore, pursuant to § 2254(d), "a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or...could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision" of the Supreme Court.Id."[I]f this standard is difficult to meet, that is because it was meant to be."Harrington, 131 S.Ct. at 786.

Although 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the AEDPA, does not completely bar federal courts from relitigating claims that have previously been rejected in the state courts, it preserves the authority for a federal court to grant habeas relief only "in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with"the Supreme Court's precedents.Id.Indeed, "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."Id.(citingJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332, n. 5(1979))(Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)).Therefore, in order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner is required to show that the state court's rejection of his claim "was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement."Id., at 786-787.

III.Analysis

A.Sufficiency of the Evidence

Petitioner asserts that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain his murder conviction.Specifically, Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered to show that he caused the victim's death.He asserts that the gunshots were nonfatal and that the victim's reckless driving after the shooting was the cause of his death.Respondent asserts that the Michigan Court of Appeals decision rejecting this claim on the merits was not objectively unreasonable.

"The Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364(1970).But the critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is, "whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318(1979).This inquiry, however, does not require a court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.Id. at 318-19(internal citation and footnote omitted)(emphasis in the original).

More importantly, a federal habeas court may not overturn a state court decision that rejects a sufficiency of the evidence claim simply because the federal court...