Garza v. Brown

• Decision Date: 02 October 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:20-cv-175
• Parties: ANTONIO GARZA, Petitioner, v. MIKE BROWN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

ANTONIO GARZA, Petitioner, v. MIKE BROWN, Respondent.

Case No. 2:20-cv-175

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

October 2, 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 Antonio Garza is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. On December 1, 2011, following a one-day bench trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree home invasion, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AGBH), in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84. Petitioner did not show up for his sentencing on December 1, 2012. It is not clear from the petition, the circuit court docket, or the appellate court dockets why Petitioner failed to show up. He showed up eventually. On June 19, 2018, the court sentenced Petitioner to prison terms of 2 to 10 years for AGBH and 4 years, 9 months to 20 years for first-degree home invasion.

Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002). At some point between September 11, 2020, the date Petitioner signed the disbursement authorization he attached to his petition (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15), and September 14, 2020, the date of the postmark on the envelope containing the petition (ECF No. 1, PageID.13), Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. The petition was received by the Court on September 16, 2020. The petition was timely filed using any of those dates as the filing date.

The petition raises three grounds for relief, as follows:

I. Whether there was insufficient evidence presented at trial by the prosecution to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner committed home invasion.

II. Whether or not the Petitioner's guaranteed federal and state Constitutional rights to due process of law to have a fair and impartial trial were clearly violated when Trial Judge Vera Massey Jones abused her discretion when her clearly erroneous fact finding decision was palpably and grossly violative of facts and logic that do not accurately portray the factualbackground of the case when she chose an outcome falling outside the principle range of reasonable outcomes by repeatedly giving the Complainant creditability to obvious blatantly inconsistent statements and trial testimony; and Sentencing Judge Shannon Nicol Walker's failure to correct the inaccurate sentence information and Prior Record Variables and Offense Variables which effected his sentencing guidelines and sentence.

III. Whether or not the Petitioner's guaranteed federal and state Constitutional rights to due process of law to have a fair and impartial trial and the effective assistance of counsel were clearly violated when Trial Counsel Wright Blake failed to adequately investigate, advise, and discuss the ongoing negotiation plea bargaining process and the consequence of the outcome of the potential plea bargain offer and the failure to adequately investigate the defense Res Gestate [sic] witnesses and call them during trial to lay a proper foundation to impeach the complainant's inconsistent statements and trial testimony and his failure to properly prepare a substantial defense of his actual innocence of First Degree Home Invasion and Assault With Intent to do Great Bodily Harm Less Than Murder and non-deadly use of self-defense.

(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5-8.)

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, 529 U.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 habeas petitioner is required to 'show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'" Woods, 575 U.S. at 316 (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011)). In other words, "[w]here the precise contours of the right remain unclear, state courts enjoy broad discretion in theiradjudication of a prisoner's claims." White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 424 (2014) (internal quotations omitted).

The AEDPA requires heightened respect for state factual findings. Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1998). A determination of a factual issue made by a state court is presumed to be correct, and the petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Lancaster v. Adams, 324 F.3d 423, 429 (6th Cir. 2003); Bailey, 271 F.3d at 656. This presumption of correctness is accorded to findings of state appellate courts, as well as the trial court. See Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546 (1981); Smith v. Jago, 888 F.2d 399, 407 n.4 (6th Cir. 1989).

Petitioner has raised his habeas issues in this Court exactly as he raised them in the Michigan appellate courts. He does not respond to the court of appeals' resolution of his claims in any respect. He does not explain how the court of appeals' determinations were contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor does he offer evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the factual determinations by the court of appeals are correct.

III. Discussion

A. Sufficiency of the evidence regarding home invasion (habeas issues I and II)

A § 2254 challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is governed by the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), which is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."¹This standard of review recognizes the trier of fact's responsibility to resolve reasonable conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Id. Issues of credibility may not be reviewed by the habeas court under this standard. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 401-02 (1993). Rather, the habeas court is required to examine the evidence supporting the conviction, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, with specific reference to the elements of the crime as established by state law. Jackson, 443...