Corrion v. Berghuis

• Decision Date: 07 July 2011
• Docket Number: Case Number 09-10696
• Parties: JOHN CORRION, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS,Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

JOHN CORRION, Petitioner,

v.MARY BERGHUIS,Respondent.

Case Number 09-10696

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: July 7, 2011

Honorable David M. Lawson

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

John Corrion is a prisoner confined at the Michigan Department of Corrections's Earnest Brooks Correctional Facility serving a sentence for soliciting his cellmate to murder Corrion's ex-wife. Corrion contends that his conviction is unconstitutional, and his petition and amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pro se, identifies nineteen separate claims for relief. The respondent filed an answer arguing only that the petition must be dismissed because the petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies with respect to eight of his claims. She has not bothered to address the merits of the other claims, despite her obligation to do so. See Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring that "[t]he answer must address the allegations in the petition"). The petitioner did not fairly present several of these claims to all the Michigan appellate courts, but because there are no longer any avenues for relief in state court for Corrion, the exhaustion defense does not apply. However, the Court finds that many of Corrion's claims were denied on state procedural grounds, which constitute an adequate and independent basis under state law to refuse the claims. The balance of the claims that are properly presented lack merit. Therefore, the Court will deny the petition.

The solicitation plot was hatched while Corrion was incarcerated in the Livingston County Jail serving a sentence for assaulting his ex-wife, Karen Corrion, with the intent to cause her great bodily harm. That assault took place during the evening of May 10, 2005. Karen had been divorced from the petitioner, her husband of thirty-one years, since 2001. The petitioner violently attacked Karen when she left her home to investigate a disturbance on her property. As part of the assault sentence, the petitioner was required to serve a term of incarceration in the Livingston County Jail. While the petitioner was in jail, Ms. Corrion had no contact with him.

Leonard Johnson was the person with whom the petitioner negotiated to kill Karen Corrion. Johnson was a pretrial detainee facing a charge of uttering and publishing for which he ultimately was sentenced to a term of probation. Johnson was transferred to the petitioner's cell, and although the petitioner asserts the transfer was by the state's design, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that his contention has any basis in fact.

According to Johnson's trial testimony, he and the petitioner engaged in conversation about the petitioner's troubles with his ex-wife. Johnson told the petitioner about dead bodies buried underneath a swimming pool in Florida, and the petitioner then said that he would like to see his ex-wife look like that. Johnson suggested that he and his brother-in-law could beat his ex-wife up when he got out of jail. Johnson admittedly lied about his brother-in-law having killed someone in the past. The petitioner agreed, and he offered to pay Johnson to hurt his ex-wife because he did not want her to get any more money from him. Johnson acknowledged that he initially offered to do harm to Karen Corrion, but he said that the idea of actually killing her was the petitioner's. The petitioner offered to pay Johnson for that service.

Johnson, proving to be an unreliable business partner, then attempted to turn this deal to his advantage and wrote a letter to Detective Donald Welch about this information. Even though Johnson had already plead guilty in his own case, he was hopeful that he could work out some sort of arrangement for leniency. He insisted that he made no plea agreements as a result of his cooperation in the petitioner's case, but he admitted that the prosecutor notified the court regarding his cooperation. The cooperation consisted of Johnson's agreement to wear a wire for the detective, which he did on two occassions.

During the first recorded conversation, which occurred on September 7, 2006, Johnson and the petitioner were in a general holding area. The petitioner talked about having something done to his ex-wife and was willing to pay to have it done. At the request of Detective Welch, Johnson asked the petitioner to draw a map of his ex-wife's property. Johnson identified the map drawn by the petitioner, and how the petitioner suggested that he approach the house to avoid the security cameras. After the conversation with the petitioner, Johnson gave the map to the detective.

At trial, Karen Corrion identified the hand-drawn map of her residence that the petitioner had drawn. The map showed the location of several security cameras. Ms. Corrion testified to various acts of vandalism occurring at her residence, including the repeated dumping of garbage, that she believed were performed by the petitioner.

Apparently, the quality of the first recording was very poor. Detective Welch then wired Johnson for a second conversation, which took place on September 8, 2006. During that encounter, the petitioner drew another map. The petitioner stated that he wanted his ex-wife dead, and he was willing to pay $20,000. He was able to arrange generous credit terms with Johnson, who agreed totake a $100 down payment. Later, Johnson became aware of the fact that the petitioner's current wife deposited $100 into Johnson's jail account.

Detective Welch described his first contact (letter) and conversation with Johnson and Johnson's agreement to cooperate. Johnson agreed to wear a wire and was sent back into the cell with the petitioner. Welch watched the first attempt to record a conversation on a monitor. The attempt was unsuccessful, however, because there was too much background noise. Welch confirmed that the petitioner drew a map of his ex-wife's property during this first conversation.

The next day, when Johnson was wired again, the recorded conversation was mostly audible. This second conversation between the petitioner and Johnson was played for the jury. There were portions of the recording that were difficult to hear, and a transcript was also prepared. The transcript was received in evidence by stipulation.

The following week, Welch contacted Ms. Corrion, and she verified the information contained on the maps. The petitioner later directed his current wife to place money into Johnson's jail account. Copies of telephone conversations between the petitioner and his wife were recorded and admitted into evidence. In these conversations, the petitioner explained to his wife that the money was a loan to Johnson for his bond.

The defense did not present any witnesses, and the petitioner did not testify, although he acknowledged on the record his right to do so. The jury found the petitioner guilty of solicitation to commit murder in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.157b(2). He was sentenced as a second habitual felony offender to an indeterminate sentence with a minimum prison term of 21 years, 10 months and a maximum term of 40 years.

Following his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed a direct appeal. His appellate counsel filed a brief that raised five claims:

I. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for an entrapment hearing.

II. Improper admission of Michigan Rules of Evidence 404(b) evidence at trial.

III. Prosecutorial misconduct in prosecutor's closing argument.

IV. Jury was improperly instructed on how to consider Rule 404(b) evidence.

V. Trial court erred in scoring the sentencing guidelines.

The petitioner also filed a pro se supplemental brief, raising an additional eight claims:

I. Defendant is entitled to a new trial where the whole transaction was not played to the jury.

II. Defendant is entitled to a new trial when his counsel would not call favorable witnesses or let the defendant testify in his own behalf.

III. Defendant is entitled to a new trial when he was denied his right to counsel by police in their manufactured crime.

IV. Defendant is entitled to a new trial by the prosecution playing the third party non-consensual sound recordings to the jury.

V. Defendant is entitled to a new trial when the trial court violated Michigan Rule of Evidence 402, 403, and 404(b).

VI. Defendant is entitled to a new trial when his counsel denied his request for an entrapment hearing.

VII. Defendant is entitled to anew trial as police requested defendant to make incriminating maps through their agent.

VIII. Defendant is entitled to a new trial where instructions to the jury were inadequate to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. People v. Corrion, No. 278169, 2008 WL 4332096 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2008). The petitioner then filed an applicationfor leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court that raised the five claims presented in his appellate counsel's brief, the eight claims presented in his supplemental brief, and the following three additional claims:

I. The trial court unlawfully enhanced the sentence as punishment for going to trial in lieu of pleading guilty.

II. The sentence was enhanced with a prior conviction for which defendant did not have counsel for his first-tier appellate proceeding.

III. Trial court was coercive and not neutral or detached because the court threatened a 22-to-80 year sentence for going to trial.

The Michigan Supreme Court denied the petitioner's application for leave to appeal. People v. Corrion, 483 Mich. 882, 759 N.W.2d 389 (2009) (table).

The petitioner then filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court after his habeas petition had been pending in this Court. The trial court granted his request for counsel. The motion raised the following seven claims:

I. Withholding material evidence is a violation of the due process / equal

...