Chambers v. McCullick
Decision Date | 01 March 2022 |
Docket Number | 2:19-CV-11396 |
Parties | SHANE SWINDALL CHAMBERS, Petitioner, v. MARK MCCULLICK, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION & ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY & DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
This is a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Shane Swindall Chambers (“Petitioner”) was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct using force and causing personal injury, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(f), first-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a(2), and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84, following a jury trial in the Kent County Circuit Court. He was sentenced, as a fourth habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12, to life imprisonment on the criminal sexual conduct conviction, a consecutive term of 25 to 50 years imprisonment on the home invasion conviction, and a concurrent term of 10 to 50 years imprisonment on the assault conviction in 2014. In his pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the admission of other acts evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of preliminary examination testimony for unavailable witnesses and the effectiveness of trial counsel, the trial court's jurisdiction, and the conduct of the prosecutor (alleged malicious prosecution).
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies the habeas petition. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Petitioner's convictions arise from a home invasion and assault upon on a 77-year-old woman in Kent County, Michigan on September 19, 2013. The Michigan Court of Appeals described the underlying facts, which are presumed correct on habeas review, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009), as follows:
People v. Chambers, No. 323024, 2015 WL 8538928, *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2015) (unpublished).
Following his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals raising claims concerning the admission of other acts evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the admission of preliminary examination testimony from unavailable witnesses and a related ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court denied relief on those claims and affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences. Id. at pp. 2-8. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v. Chambers, 499 Mich. 970, 880 N.W.2d 552 (2016).
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court raising claims concerning the admission of the other acts testimony, the trial court's jurisdiction, his actual innocence, the conduct of the prosecutor (malicious prosecution), the great weight of the evidence, and the effectiveness of appellate counsel. The trial court denied the motion for lack of merit. People v. Chambers, No. 14-000265-FC (Kent Cnty. Cir. Ct. June 8, 2017). Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals which was denied for failure to establish that the trial court erred in denying relief from judgment. People v. Chambers, No. 341487 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2018). Petitioner also filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied for failure to establish entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). People v. Chambers, 503 Mich. 885, 918 N.W.2d 817 (2018).
Petitioner thereafter filed his federal habeas petition raising the following claims:
Respondent has filed an answer to the habeas petition contending that it should be denied because the first and fourth claims are procedurally defaulted and all of the claims lack merit.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., sets forth the standard of review that federal courts must use when considering habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging their state court convictions. The AEDPA provides in relevant part:
28 U.S.C. §2254(d) (1996).
“A state court's decision is ‘contrary to' clearly established law if it ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court cases]' or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [that] precedent.'” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). “[T]he ‘unreasonable application' prong of § 2254(d)(1) permits a federal habeas court to ‘grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from Court but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of petitioner's case.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413); see also Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. However, Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (citations omitted); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial