Carico v. Woods
| Decision Date | 23 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No. 08-14570 |
| Parties | ROBERT P. CARICO, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
Petitioner Robert P. Carico ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner currently confined at the Pine River Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In his pleading, Petitioner challenges his state convictions in 2005 for assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault), felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during the commission of, or attempt to commit, a felony (felony firearm). Petitioner alleges that the trial court committed errors during his trial and at sentencing and that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective. In his answer to the petition, Respondent urges the Court to deny the petition. The Court concludes from a review of the pleadings and the record that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. Accordingly, the Court is denying the petition and Petitioner's motion for partialsummary judgment.
Petitioner was charged in Jackson County, Michigan with two counts of felonious assault, one count of felon in possession of a firearm, and three counts of felony firearm. The charges arose from allegations that Petitioner pointed a rifle at Marshawn Williams and Daniel Brzozowski on August 13, 2004, near the intersection South Mechanic and Wilkins Streets in Jackson, Michigan.
At Petitioner's trial, Marshawn Williams ("Marshawn") testified that his aunt and brother lived at 614 South Mechanic Street and that at around noon on August 13, 2004, an "X" was discovered on the home's front steps. Marshawn's friend Joshua Russell ("Josh") explained the meaning of the "X" to him. Marshawn then instructed Josh to ask Petitioner about the "X." Josh walked down the street and returned with Petitioner, who denied being responsible for the "X." Marshawn and Petitioner began to argue and almost started a fist fight. Petitioner pulled a knife from his pants, showed it to Marshawn, and then walked back down the street.
About twenty minutes later, Petitioner returned to 614 South Mechanic Street in his truck and almost ran over Marshawn. After stopping the truck, Petitioner stuck a gun out the window and pointed it at Marshawn, Josh, their friend Daniel Brzozowski ("Daniel"), all of whom were standing on the house. Petitioner said, "Don't run, you cowards." Marshawn, Josh, and Daniel then ran inside the house. Petitionersubsequently parked his truck across the street and pointed the gun at the house. He then got back into his truck, circled the neighborhood, and drove away. In the meantime, a neighbor called the police and Petitioner subsequently was arrested.
Josh also testified at Petitioner's trial. According to Josh, he was living at 614 South Mechanic Street on August 13, 2004, when Petitioner came to the front door of the house, rang the doorbell, and then when Josh came to the door, tried to get inside. Josh then saw the "X" on the steps and shoved Petitioner back outside. Petitioner admitted to Josh that he put the "X" on the steps and warned Josh to leave the house because the "X" meant everybody in the house was going to be terminated. Josh testified that he assumed Petitioner was angry because one of Josh's friends had not paid Petitioner for a prior purchase of marijuana.
Later that day, Josh discussed the "X" with Marshawn, who asked Josh to bring Petitioner to him. Josh then brought Petitioner to 614 South Mechanic Street. At trial, Josh described essentially the same ensuing events that Marshawn provided during his testimony. Josh further testified that after the incident, he went to jail on unrelated charges and was incarcerated with Petitioner, who warned Josh not to testify against him at trial to avoid having something bad happen to him.
Daniel also testified at Petitioner's trial and described the incident in essentially the same way as Marshawn and Josh. The Government also called Rocquelle Rogers, Pamela Thurson, and Rosemary Williams. These witnesses also saw someone pull up in a truck and point a gun toward Marshawn, Josh, and Daniel. Only Rosemary Williamswas able to identify Petitioner as the perpetrator. Rocquelle Rogers was the individual who called the police.
Police Officer Craig Edmondson testified that he responded to the scene and arrested Petitioner. Officer Edmondson observed an assault rifle covered almost entirely by a blanket in Petitioner's truck. The gun was not loaded, and Officer Edmondson did not find any ammunition in the truck or on Petitioner. According to the officer, there was a strong smell of liquor on Petitioner, but Petitioner did not stagger or slur his words and he complied with the officer's instructions.
Police Officer Mark Smith also responded to the scene and assisted with the arrest. Officer Smith testified that he postponed taking a statement from Petitioner because he thought Petitioner was highly intoxicated.
At the close of the prosecution's case, the prosecution and defense stipulated that Petitioner had previously been convicted of a felony and was not eligible to possess a firearm on August 13, 2004.
Petitioner testified that he had befriended Josh and tried to get Josh out of a gang. Petitioner explained that gang members were living at 614 Mechanic Street, and on August 13, 2004, Josh informed him that the gang wanted to talk to him. Petitioner went to the house and was informed by Marshawn and two other men to leave Josh alone. He felt threatened and ran home where he drank some whiskey. Petitioner claimed that he called the police to report that he was attacked by a gang, but an employee informed him that no one was in the general vicinity.
Petitioner testified that Marshawn and another man then came to his house and yelled at him to come out of the house. After Marshawn and the man left, two other men whom he did not know came to his house. Petitioner testified that he was hiding upstairs, but noticed that one of the men had a shiny revolver. He called a friend and told the friend that he needed a gun. Petitioner testified that he thought the gang was going to hurt him. He was still drinking and did not remember anything after getting in his truck to go to his friend's house. No other witnesses testified for the defense.
On February 15, 2005, a the jury found Petitioner guilty, as charged, of two counts of felonious assault in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.82, one count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.224f, and three counts of felony firearm in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.227b. On April 21, 2005, the trial court sentenced Petitioner as a habitual offender, fourth offense, to three concurrent terms of two years in prison for the felony firearm convictions to be followed by concurrent terms of four years and ten months to fifteen years in prison for the assault and felon-in-possession convictions.
On direct appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions, but remanded his case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the trial court had relied on uncounseled prior convictions at sentencing. People v. Carico, No. 263155 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2006) (unpublished). The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the other issues. People v. Carico, 478 Mich. 926, 732 N.W.2d 918 (2007). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on September 10, 2007. People v. Carico, 480 Mich. 864, 737 N.W.2d 727 (2007).
On March 2, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on the sentencing issue and determined that there were no issues of significance requiring re-sentencing. The court nevertheless ordered changes in the presentence report to correct some minor inaccuracies and to show that Petitioner had been represented by counsel during a number of his prior convictions.
The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's subsequent appeal "for lack of merit in the grounds presented." People v. Carico, No. 277973 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2007). The Michigan Supreme Court determined, however, that Petitioner had been entitled to an appeal by right from the order denying his motion for re-sentencing. Accordingly, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals to consider Petitioner's appellate application "as on leave granted." People v. Carico, 480 Mich. 1185, 747 N.W.2d 270 (2008). On remand, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's sentence. People v. Carico, No. 277973 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2009). The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the issues merited review. See People v. Carico, 484 Mich. 869, 769 N.W.2d 700 (2009). On October 26, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied reconsideration. People v. Carico, 485 Mich. 932, 773 N.W.2d 692 (2009).
Meanwhile, in August 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment inthe state trial court. The court denied his motion on October 10, 2007, and the Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal for failure to establish entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). People v. Carico, No. 284427 (Mich. Ct. App. June 10, 2008). Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, but the Court rejected his papers as untimely on September 12, 2008.
In early 2010, Petitioner filed a second motion for relief from judgment in which he challenged a 1991 conviction for operating a vehicle...
To continue reading
Request your trial