Franklin v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 29 November 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL 2:20-CV-12746
• Parties: DAJEON FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. WILLIS CHAPMAN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

DAJEON FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. WILLIS CHAPMAN, Respondent.

CIVIL No. 2:20-CV-12746

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

November 29, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dajeon Franklin, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction for first-degree felony murder, M.C.L.A. 750.316(1)(b), two counts of first-degree home invasion, M.C.L.A. 750.110a(2) conspiracy to commit second-degree home invasion, M.C.L.A 750.110a(3), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, [felony-firearm], M.C.L.A. 750.227b. For the reasons that follow, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court. “The facts as recited by the Michigan Court of Appeals are presumed correct on habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).” Shimel v. Warren, 838 F.3d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 2016). The facts are as follows:

A jury convicted defendant of first-degree felony murder, two counts of first-degree home invasion, conspiracy to commit second-degree home invasion, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), for his role in a robbery spree and the murder of University of Michigan medical student, Paul DeWolf.

I. BACKGROUND

On the night of July 23, 2013, defendant, Joei Jordan, and Shaquille Jones drove from Ypsilanti to an Ann Arbor neighborhood where the homes were divided into smaller units for rent by students. The trio planned to break into houses to steal small, valuable items. The men entered 210 North Ingalls Street through an open window and stole a MacBook laptop and a purse. They then entered the neighboring home, 220 North Ingalls Street, a medical society house that rented individual bedrooms to students. While in the basement stealing a video game system, the men heard one of the bedroom doors open and the resident go inside. Despite knowing that someone was present, defendant and his accomplices decided to enter that bedroom.

When the trio entered the dark bedroom, DeWolf slowly stood up from his bed and repeatedly asked, “Who is there?” No one responded. Defendant moved toward DeWolf holding a handgun in one hand aiming it at the victim. DeWolf reached for defendant or the gun, and defendant pulled the gun back. Defendant then hit DeWolf with an overhead swing of the gun and the gun discharged. Jones, Jordan, and defendant ran out of the residence. Defendant told Jones and Jordan that he shot DeWolf because he thought DeWolf had a knife or was grabbing for the gun.

DeWolf died from his gunshot wound. The medical evidence supported that the gun fired while it was sweeping downward. The weapon was in close range to DeWolf's clavicle and the bullet caused severe damage as it travelled downward through his torso and out his middle back. Defendant and his accomplices were apprehended after officers traced the stolen items they sold and secured fingerprint evidence from the two robbery scenes. Officers also discovered dots of DeWolf's blood on the shoes worn by defendant that night.

People v. Franklin, No. 325551, 2016 WL 1391305, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2016)(internal citations omitted).

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed. Id., lv. den. 500 Mich. 933, 889 N.W.2d 269 (2017).

Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment. The motion was denied. People v. Franklin, No. 14-181-FC (Washtenaw County Circuit Court, Nov. 19, 2018). The Michigan appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Franklin, No. 347139 (Mich. Ct. App. June 6, 2019); lv. den. 505 Mich. 975, 937 N.W.2d 651 (2020).

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:

I. Defendant was denied his due process right when his arraignment was unnecessarily delayed for 3 months after his arrest.

II. Defendant was denied his right to due process and right to be free from unreasonable search(s) and seizure(s) when information obtained from the illegal search of petitioner's cellphone was admitted and used as evidence against him during trial.

III. Defendant was denied his right to due process and right to confront the witness against him when audio and transcript testimony was admitted into evidence when the witness was incarcerated by the court's authority and was available to testify at his trial.

IV. Defendant was denied his right to due process and right to effective assistance of counsel when counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, failing to conduct reasonable investigations, to file motion to dismiss, to object to prosecutor's misconduct and to compel the prosecutor to produce his accuser(s).

V. Defendant was denied his right to due process and right to a fair trial by admitting autopsy and crime scene photographs of deceased victim, where the prejudicial effect unfairly outweighed their probative value.

VI. Defendant was denied his right to due process and right to effective assistance of appellate counsel.

VII. Defendant was denied his due process right to a fair trial by the admission of substantially and unfairly prejudicial “other acts” evidence that he had a gun on various occasions between 2009 and the summer of 2013, where there was no evidence tying the “other acts” to the firearm used in the instant offense, such evidence had no probative value, was used for prohibited purposes, and was unfairly prejudicial to defendant.

VIII. The evidence of malice was insufficient: defendant's conviction represents a denial of due process and must be vacated, or, in the alternative, reduced.

IX. Defendant was denied his right to due process and right to a fair trial by prosecution vouching for the credibility of the “unavailable” witness during closing and rebuttal arguments.

II. Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes the following standard of review for habeas cases:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim-

(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 on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

A decision of a state court is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An “unreasonable application” occurs when “a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case.” Id. at 409. A federal habeas court may not “issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Id. at 410-11. “[A] state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011)(citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). Therefore, in order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner is required to show that the state court's rejection of his claim “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at 103.

III. Discussion

A. The procedural default issue.

Respondent urges this Court to procedurally default petitioner's first through fifth claims and his ninth claim because petitioner raised them for the first time in his post-conviction motion and failed to show cause and prejudice, as required by M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3), for failing to raise them on his appeal of right.

Petitioner argues in his sixth claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these claims on his appeal of right. Ineffective assistance of counsel may establish cause for procedural default. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451-52 (2000). Given that the cause and prejudice inquiry for the procedural default issue merges with an analysis of the merits of the defaulted claims, it would be easier to consider the merits of the claims. See Cameron v. Birkett, 348 F.Supp.2d 825, 836 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Petitioner could not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim because post-conviction review was the first opportunity he had to raise this claim. See Guilmette v. Howes, 624 F.3d 286, 291 (6th Cir. 2010).

Respondent also argues that a portion of petitioner's seventh claim alleging the improper admission of other acts evidence is defaulted because petitioner failed to object at trial. Because the same legal analysis applies to both the preserved and unpreserved 404(b) claims, it would be easier to simply address the merits of the unpreserved claim.

B. Claims # 1...