Burns v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 13 November 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-1003
• Parties: KIERELLE MONTRELL BURNS, Petitioner, v. SHANE JACKSON, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

KIERELLE MONTRELL BURNS, Petitioner, v. SHANE JACKSON, Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-1003

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

November 13, 2020

Honorable Paul L. Maloney

OPINION

This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to "screen out" petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Petitioner Kierelle Montrell Burns is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, (LRF) in Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County, Michigan. On November 7, 2017, following a five-day jury trial in the Muskegon County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. On December 13, 2017, the court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment without the chance of parole for murder, to be served consecutively to a 2-year sentence for felony-firearm.

The Michigan Court of Appeals described the facts underlying Petitioner's convictions as follows:

Defendant's convictions arise from the shooting death of Darnell Byrd in the early morning hours of September 5, 2015. Testimony and evidence established that defendant, Byrd, and Byrd's close friend, Josiah Fousse, worked for Jeremey Morton, who ran a criminal enterprise that distributed illegal narcotics in Muskegon, Michigan. There was testimony that Morton, Fousse, and Byrd had been involved in a homicide just days earlier and that Byrd had been arrested. Morton feared that Byrd was talking to police officers and arranged for Byrd to be bailed out of jail. Morton then fabricated a plan to commit a robbery. In actuality, he asked Fousse and defendant to kill Byrd. Evidence showed that Morton and his girlfriend dropped off defendant, Fousse, and Byrd by an alley that was near the place where they had told Byrd they would commit the robbery. Defendant and Fousse shot Byrd approximately 14 times as the three men walked down the alley. Defendant and Fousse then met up with Morton and fled to Grand Rapids where they were later apprehended.

(Mich. Ct. App. Op., ECF No. 1-1, PageID.19.)

Petitioner was arrested on a material witness warrant on September 17, 2015. (Pet'r's Appeal Br., ECF No. 1-2, PageID.37.) He was interviewed thereafter a few times. Duringthe third interview, Petitioner admitted his involvement in the crime. (Id.) Petitioner was arraigned and scheduled for a preliminary examination, which he waived. After being bound over to circuit court, Petitioner testified at Morton's preliminary examination. The prosecutor and Petitioner's counsel told Petitioner that he would get a plea agreement for his testimony against Morton.

The parties reached an agreement regarding Petitioner's plea: Petitioner was to plead guilty to second-degree murder; Petitioner would also plead guilty to felony-firearm and to being a second habitual offender; Petitioner would testify against any co-defendants in the Byrd murder case and against defendants on a separate homicide case; and sentencing would be at the discretion of the trial judge who would be informed regarding the extent of Petitioner's cooperation.

Petitioner had a change of heart. He wrote the trial court letters indicating that he was no longer willing to testify against other defendants and he claimed he was induced to enter the plea agreement by lies from counsel. Moreover, he claimed he was told to lie about Morton's involvement. At a status conference, Petitioner informed the court that he wanted to withdraw his plea, but he wanted to condition that withdrawal on the exclusion of his prior statements during the third interview and during Morton's preliminary examination. The trial court informed Petitioner that his earlier statements would not simply go away. Consultation with counsel during the conference also revealed some confusion on Petitioner's part regarding the availability of duress as a defense to the murder charge. After counsel explained the defense was not available to a charge of murder, Petitioner changed his mind again and indicated that he did not want to withdraw his plea. By that point, however, the prosecutor indicated that he was no longer interested in the plea deal because Petitioner indicated that he would not testify against otherdefendants as required by the plea agreement. The trial court invited Petitioner to file a written motion to withdraw the plea if that was what he wanted to do.

Petitioner filed a written motion to withdraw his plea claiming that he had been coerced into saying things that suggested the existence of a conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, things that were not true. The prosecutor did not oppose the motion and the court permitted Petitioner to withdraw his plea.

Petitioner unsuccessfully attempted to suppress the prior statements. They were introduced at his trial. Petitioner did not testify. The jury found Petitioner guilty of first-degree murder.

Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, directly appealed his convictions, raising the same three issues he raises in his habeas petition. By opinion issued June 18, 2019, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's challenges and affirmed the trial court. Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court raising the same issues he had raised in the court of appeals. The supreme court denied leave by order entered November 26, 2019.

On October 14, 2020, Petitioner timely filed his habeas corpus petition raising three grounds for relief, as follows:

I. [Petitioner] is entitled to reversal of his convictions where the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the murder charges and where it erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser offense of manslaughter.

II. [Petitioner] is entitled to reversal of his convictions where the trial court erred in admitting his prior statements into evidence thereby depriving him of his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

III. [Petitioner] is entitled to reversal of his conviction and re-instatement of his original plea where trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that duress or undue pressure was a proper defense to a charge of murder and where counsel advised him that his prior statements would not be admissible at trial.

(Pet. Exh. B, ECF No. 1-2, PageID.28.)

II. AEDPA standard

This action is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA). The AEDPA "prevents federal habeas 'retrials'" and ensures that state court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under the law. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693-94 (2002). An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a state conviction cannot be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication: "(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 upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This standard is "intentionally difficult to meet." Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015) (internal quotation omitted).

The AEDPA limits the source of law to cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This Court may consider only the holdings, and not the dicta, of the Supreme Court. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000); Bailey v. Mitchell, 271 F.3d 652, 655 (6th Cir. 2001). In determining whether federal law is clearly established, the Court may not consider the decisions of lower federal courts. Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1, 4 (2014); Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58, 64 (2013); Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 48-49 (2012); Williams, 529U.S. at 381-82; Miller v. Straub, 299 F.3d 570, 578-79 (6th Cir. 2002). Moreover, "clearly established Federal law" does not include decisions of the Supreme Court announced after the last adjudication of the merits in state court. Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 37-38 (2011). Thus, the inquiry is limited to an examination of the legal landscape as it would have appeared to the Michigan state courts in light of Supreme Court precedent at the time of the state-court adjudication on the merits. Miller v. Stovall, 742 F.3d 642, 644 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Greene, 565 U.S. at 38).

A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the "contrary to" clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court's cases, or if it decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Bell, 535 U.S. at 694 (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06). "To satisfy this high bar, a...