Bell v. Howes, 11–1046.

Citation703 F.3d 848
Decision Date29 January 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11–1046.,11–1046.
PartiesArthur BELL, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Carol HOWES, Warden, Respondent–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ARGUED:John S. Pallas, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Joan Ellerbusch Morgan, Sylvan Lake, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:John S. Pallas, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Joan Ellerbusch Morgan, Sylvan Lake, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: SILER and MOORE, Circuit Judges; VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.*

OPINION

VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

Over two decades ago Arthur Bell was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm while committing a felony in the shooting death of William Thompson. Bell petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus with the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The petition was granted. For the reasons stated below, the district court's decision will be REVERSED and the case will be REMANDED.

I.

On September 22, 1988, Priscilla Matthews and William Thompson (Herk 1) were in a motel room in Detroit, Michigan. That evening, Matthews called her sister who reported that three men were looking for Thompson and Matthews. Matthews testified that the three men were Bobby Mims (Oddie 2), Mark Sylvertooth, and Chill.3 Testimony revealed that Thompson sold drugs on Mims' behalf, and a dispute about a missing quantity of drugs had arisen.

Sometime after 10:00 p.m., the motel room door was kicked open. What transpired next is disputed. Matthews testified that Sylvertooth and Chill carried Thompson out of the room, put him in a car, and drove away. Mims, Sylvertooth, Chill, and Thompson were the only individuals in the car. After a short time, the car returned and Mims asked Matthews about the missing drugs. While that was going on, Chill quickly entered and left the motel room.

Sylvertooth's recounting of this situation has a different cast and beginning, and was relied upon by the trial court. He testified that Matthews called Mims and disclosed that Thompson was with her at the 20 Grand Motel. In response, Sylvertooth, Mims, Durone Jenkins,4 and Bell drove to the motel. Sylvertooth and Bell forced themselves into Thompson and Matthews's room. While Matthews fled into the room's bathroom, Thompson was abducted by Sylvertooth and Bell.

Thompson was driven away by Bell, Sylvertooth, Jenkins, and Mims. The car made an undetermined number of stops while Mims severely battered Thompson. Mims exited the vehicle after a period of time, and Jenkins, Sylvertooth, Bell, and Thompson traveled to a nearby viaduct where Bell shot Thompson as he sat in the car. Police responded to the gunshots, but the suspects fled, leaving the victim dead in the automobile.

Within hours, the police arrested Mims. Matthews's accurate recitation of the car's license plate linked Mims to the car in which Thompson was killed. Sylvertooth presented himself to police on September 30 and gave a statement to police implicating Bell that same day.

On October 3, 1988, Bell was arrested. The following day he participated in a lineup and gave a statement. Matthews viewed that lineup but was unable to make a positive identification. Bell's statement revealed that he received transportation to and from a meeting with his parole officer from Mims, Sylvertooth, and Jenkins; then he was dropped off. Bell explained that Mims and Sylvertooth contacted him about Thompson's murder and problems associated with it. Bell was then released from police custody.

On October 20, Mims, Sylvertooth, and the unidentified Chilly Will were charged with Thompson's murder. The identification of Chilly Will unfolded on January 23, 1989 when police arrested Willie King 5 on the suspicion that he was Chilly Will.

Willie King lived near the location at which Thompson was last seen. This was close to the place from where Matthews claimed she knew Chilly Will. Whether King's physical characteristics match Matthews's description is subject to debate—she described him as a black male with a “real dark” complexion, 22 years old, 5'10?, and weighing 160 pounds, while police records list him as a black male, 24 years old, 5'7?, and weighing 150 pounds—but it is clear that King went by the nickname Chilly Will. King also knew Thompson and Mims, but he was unfamiliar with Sylvertooth. King never faced trial over this incident, and in 2002, he died.

In January 1989, Durone Jenkins was interviewed by police. Jenkins was never prosecuted, but he inculpated himself as the driver of the car in which Thompson was killed, and he corroborated Sylvertooth's factual recounting, albeit with less clarity. That is, Jenkins only described the fourth party through use of the nickname “Tone.” Grasping on to that fact, Bell argues that Jenkins did not refer to him. Bell's trial counsel, however, explained that there was no question that Jenkins was referring to Bell. Bell's counsel pointed to Sylvertooth's reference to Tone for support that this issue was never seriously questioned: [e]verybody else clarified that Tone is Bell.”

Nearly six months after Bell was arrested and released, Bell was arrested again. He proceeded to a bench trial and on June 19, 1989 was found guilty of felony murder and possessing a firearm while committing a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the murder, which was to be served consecutively to a two-year sentence for possession of a firearm. Bell appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals. He argued, in part, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to interview two alibi witnesses and present them at trial. The court of appeals remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court found that counsel had performed adequately. This decision was appealed and affirmed on the merits by the Michigan Court of Appeals on September 2, 1992. Review of this decision was denied by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Thirteen years passed before Bell petitioned on October 31, 2006 for a writ of habeas corpus.6 Counsel was appointed to aid Bell in his petition, and in the midst of investigating Bell's claims, found what was believed to be material, relevant evidence that the prosecution had not disclosed, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The district court granted a stay of the habeas proceeding so that Bell could exhaust his Brady claim in state court. The trial court denied Bell's motion on the merits. Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court denied Bell's applications for leave to appeal. Bell's federal petition was re-opened and an evidentiary hearing was conducted to examine his Brady claim.

Although Bell petitioned for habeas relief on at least five grounds, the district court granted Bell's petition only with regard to his Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Bell v. Howes, 757 F.Supp.2d 720 (E.D.Mich.2010). The remaining claims were not addressed by the district court because it determined that habeas relief was merited on both of those grounds.

II.

De novo review is applied to a district court's legal conclusions and mixed questions of fact and law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Jalowiec v. Bradshaw, 657 F.3d 293, 301 (6th Cir.2011). Review of habeas petitions is also conducted pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214, and is “highly deferential” to a state court's ruling. Cullen v. Pinholster, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). AEDPA, as codified in pertinent part at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), prohibits a federal court from granting a habeas petition for any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless that decision

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved the 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.

The district court's decision to grant Bell's petition was based on a determination that the Michigan state courts unreasonably applied federal law: in this case, the Supreme Court's decisions in Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Examining whether federal law was unreasonably applied requires a reviewing court to ascertain whether the state court's application was “objectively unreasonable.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Importantly, “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.” Id. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Perhaps encapsulating this idea most cogently, habeas relief is unavailable “so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court's decision.” Harrington v. Richter, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004)). A final part of the equation in determining unreasonable application is that the rule's specificity must be considered. That is, [t]he more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.” Id. (quoting Yarborough, 541 U.S. at 664, 124 S.Ct. 2140).

With regard to reviewing factual findings, state court findings are also owed deference under AEDPA, with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) requiring that “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct.” That presumption can be overcome only by a showing of clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Hines v. Carpenter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 16, 2015
    ... ... Independent of 2254(e)(2), the Court also has the inherent authority to set an evidentiary hearing in a habeas action. Abdur' Rahman v. Bell , 226 F.3d 696, 705-06 (6th Cir. 2000). "[A] district court does have the inherent authority to order an evidentiary hearing even if the factors ... at 538 (quoting Schlup , 513 U.S. at 327-28) (internal quotation marks omitted); Bell v. Howes , 703 F.3d 848, 855 (6 th 2012). Petitioner principally cites the results of DNA testing by Gary Harmor, a forensic serologist, who analyzed a stain ... ...
  • Pettus v. Warden, Franklin Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 2, 2021
    ... ... Harrington v ... Richter , 562 U.S. 86 (2011); Brown v. Payton, ... 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005); Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S ... 685, 693-94 (2002); Williams (Terry) v. Taylor , 529 ... U.S. 362, 379 (2000); Bell v. Howes , 703 F.3d 848 ... ...
  • Yarbrough v. Moore
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • July 21, 2014
    ... ... 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 (2011); Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005); Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, Page 4 693-94 (2002); Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 379 (2000); Bell v. Howes, 703 F.3d 848 (6 th Cir ... ...
  • MacLeod v. Braman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 3, 2020
    ... ... A habeas petitioner bears the burden of showing the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence. See Bell v ... Howes , 703 F.3d 848, 853 (6th Cir. 2012). Allegations that are merely conclusory or which are purely speculative cannot support a Brady ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT