Bradley v. Taskila

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-10175
• Decision Date: 26 November 2024
• Citation: Bradley v. Taskila, 2:20-cv-10175 (E.D. Mich. Nov 26, 2024)
• Parties: DEMETRIUS BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. KRISTOPHER TASKILA, Respondent.
• topic: Constitutional Law,Civil Procedure

1

DEMETRIUS BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. KRISTOPHER TASKILA, Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-10175

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 26, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Demetrius Bradley (Petitioner), presently confined at the Macomb Correctional Facility in Lenox Township, Michigan, is serving a sentence of thirty-five to fifty-five years imprisonment for his jury-based convictions of assault with intent to commit murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.83; felon in possession of a firearm, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.224f; and possession of a firearm during the commission of, or attempt to commit, a felony (“felony-firearm”) MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b. Petitioner, through the assistance of counsel, filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF Nos. 18, 19. The amended petition raises seven claims. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner's convictions arose from a vehicular chase and shooting in Detroit, Michigan. The following facts as recited by the Michigan Court of Appeals are presumed correct on habeas review. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):

On December 18, 2014, Larnell Fleming and his friend, John Petty, were driving to a nightclub in Fleming's van when another vehicle began following them. The front seat passenger in the other vehicle leaned out the window and began firing a gun at the van. Fleming sped away with the other vehicle in pursuit. Fleming lost control of his van and crashed into another car. Fleming survived, but Petty was ejected from the van and died from internal injuries. Fleming identified defendant as the shooter, and at the time of defendant's arrest, an explosives-detection dog alerted on the coat that he had been wearing, indicating the presence of “some sort of explosive residue” on the coat. In a recorded police interview, defendant initially denied having been in the car. Later in the interview, defendant admitted that he was in the car but asserted that he was in the back seat and did not fire any shots.

People v. Bradley, No. 331146, 2017 WL 3495370, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017) (unpublished).

Petitioner was charged in Wayne County, Michigan with the following four counts: (1) first-degree murder, in violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.316; (2) assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.83; (3) felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.224f; and (4) felony-firearm, in violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b. Petitioner's first trial resulted in a mistrial. Although the jury found Petitioner guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (count three), it was unable to reach a verdict on counts one, two, and four. ECF No. 14-10, PageID.798-801.

The prosecution then retried Petitioner on the murder, assault, and felonyfirearm counts. On November 11, 2015, the jury acquitted Petitioner of murder, but found him guilty of assault with intent to commit murder, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm. ECF No. 14-20, PageID.1501-02. On December 4, 2015, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term of thirty-five to fifty-five years in prison for the assault conviction, one to five years for the felon-in-possession conviction, and two years for the felony-firearm conviction, with credit for 347 days already served. ECF No. 14-21, PageID.1540-41.

On direct appeal from his convictions and sentences, Petitioner raised several claims concerning improper admission of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing error. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's claims and affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. See Bradley, 2017 WL 3495370, at *5. On April 4, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. See People v. Bradley, 501 Mich. 1043; 909 N.W.2d 256 (2018) (table decision).

In 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in which he raised several new claims. ECF No. 14-22. Specifically, he argued: (1) the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence of uncharged criminal conduct, (2) the search warrant for phone records was issued without probable cause, (3) trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on “dog sniffing” evidence, (4) the trial court erred by imposing costs and attorney fees, and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, sentencing, and on appeal. Id. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion on the basis that he had not carried his burden of establishing entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). See People v. Bradley, No. 15-000373-01-FC (Wayne Cnty. Cir. Ct. Oct. 1, 2019); ECF No. 14-23.

On January 23, 2020, Petitioner filed his initial habeas corpus petition, a motion to hold his petition in abeyance, and a motion for enlargement to time to file a habeas petition before this Court. ECF Nos. 1, 3, and 4. He explained in his motion to hold his petition in abeyance that he was in the process of appealing the trial court's decision on his post-conviction motion. ECF No. 3, PageID.29-30.

Additionally, Petitioner filed a second motion for relief from judgment and an amended motion for relief from judgment, in which he claimed that the trial court erred by scoring offense variable 3, which is physical injury to a victim, as if he had been convicted of first-degree murder. ECF Nos. 14-24 and 14-25. Petitioner relied on the Michigan Supreme Court's holding in People v. Beck, 504 Mich. 605; 939 N.W.2d 213 (2019), in arguing “that due process bars sentencing courts from finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant engaged in conduct of which he was acquitted.” Id., 504 Mich. at 629, 939 N.W.2d at 227.

On July 21, 2020, this Court granted Petitioner's motion to hold his habeas petition in abeyance and administratively closed this case. ECF No. 6. The trial court subsequently denied Petitioner's second motion for relief from judgment and the amended motion on July 29, 2020, ECF No. 14-26, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the trial court's decision on Petitioner's first motion for relief from judgment on November 24, 2020. People v. Bradley, 506 Mich. 962; 950 N.W.2d 724 (2020) (table decision).

On December 22, 2020, Petitioner filed an amended petition for the writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 7, and a motion to lift the stay, ECF No. 9. He raised eleven claims in his amended petition. ECF No. 7, PageID.67-69. Because Petitioner alleged in his motion to lift the stay that all his issues were now exhausted, ECF No. 9, the Court re-opened this case, ECF No. 10. Petitioner's state case, however, was still pending in the Michigan Court of Appeals on Petitioner's Beck claim.

On January 20, 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's scoring of offense variable 3. See People v. Bradley, No. 355549, 2022 WL 187978, at *2-*3 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2022). The Court of Appeals stated that Beck did not apply to Petitioner's case, and even if it did, the trial court did not consider the acquitted first-degree murder charge in its assessment of points for offense variable 3. Id.

In lieu of filing an answer, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Petitioner failed to exhaust all state remedies for one part of his claim regarding the state court's scoring of the sentencing guidelines. See ECF No. 13. Because both parties agreed that one habeas issue had not been raised in the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court stayed the case to allow Petitioner to exhaust the remaining claim. ECF No. 16.

On September 26, 2022, Petitioner moved to reopen the case and, with the assistance of counsel, filed a second amended petition, which the Court understands as raising the following claims:

I. Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for (A) failing to object to the admission of the interrogation video and (B) failing to request a jury instruction on mere presence.

II. The sentencing court made factual findings that increased Defendant's mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines range, in violation of due process.

III. The prosecutor misled the jury by stating that gunpowder was found on Petitioner's coat when there was no evidence to support that statement, in violation of due process, and trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object.

IV. Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate what kind of “explosive residue” was on Defendant's jacket.

V. The search warrant for Petitioner's phone records was issued without a probable cause showing, rendering it illegal and the related evidence inadmissible, prejudicing Petitioner's right to a fair trial.

VI. Petitioner was denied a properly instructed jury when the court denied his requested cautionary instruction on dog sniffing evidence.

VII. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, sentencing, and on direct appeal where (A) trial counsel failed to challenge numerous instances of inadmissible, prejudicial references to Petitioner's prior bad acts, (B) trial counsel failed to seek suppression of evidence illegally obtained under a warrant violating Petitioner's Fourth Amendment right, (C) trial counsel failed to object at sentencing when the trial court erroneously imposed both costs and attorney fees without a statement of reasons, and (D) appellate counsel failed to recognize

...