Granderson v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 04 May 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:17-CV-11355
• Parties: JOHN GRANDERSON, Petitioner, v. SHANE JACKSON, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

JOHN GRANDERSON, Petitioner, v. SHANE JACKSON, Respondent.

Case No. 1:17-CV-11355

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

May 4, 2020

HONORABLE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Petitioner, John Granderson, presently incarcerated at the Macomb Regional Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, has filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Saginaw County Circuit Court of conspiracy to commit murder, Mich. Comp Laws §§ 750.157a and 750.316(a), first-degree arson, Mich. Comp Laws § 750.72, conspiracy to commit first-degree arson, Mich. Comp Laws §§ 750.157a and 750.72, threatening a witness, Mich. Comp Laws § 750.122(7)(c), six counts of assault with intent to commit murder, Mich. Comp Laws § 750.83, felon in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp Laws § 750.224f, and six counts of felony-firearm, Mich. Comp Laws § 750.227b.

Petitioner now contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, that the admission of several pieces of evidence violated his right to due process, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Respondent filed an answer to the petition, asserting that the claims lack merit. The Court agrees that Petitioner's claims are without merit, therefore the petition will be denied.

I.

Petitioner was tried and convicted with his co-defendant, Jemarcus Jovon Watkins. The relevant facts are recited verbatim from the opinion by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009). The opinion provides:

Jeremy Prince testified that he attended middle school and high school with Granderson, codefendant Jemarcus Jovon Watkins, and Anterio Patton. According to Prince, he attended a pre-prom party in May 2013. During the party, there was a commotion involving Patton. Phillip Hudson, a friend of Patton, testified that Patton and Evillis McGee "had a problem with each other." According to Prince, someone fired 12 or 13 shots into the crowd during the pre-prom party, and Ne-Ne McKinley was killed.

Patton's mother testified that she was present at the pre-prom party with Patton. According to Patton's mother, she had just given Patton a hug when "the crowd went to backing up, and I seen some guys with some guns." The men with guns began shooting. Patton's sister testified that she was also at the pre-prom party and saw Watkins, Karon Thomas, and two other men shoot into the crowd.

Saginaw City Police Detective Matthew Gerow testified that he investigated the pre-prom shooting. According to Detective Gerow, McGee and Thomas were charged with murder in connection with McKinley's death. Detective Gerow testified that Patton testified at McGee and Thomas's preliminary examination. Patton's mother testified that Patton intended to testify at the murder trial on July 26, 2013.

Patton's home was attacked early in the morning on July 11, 2013. According to Prince, a friend dropped him off near Patton's home to meet his ex-girlfriend, who was at Patton's house. Patton was not there at the time, but Patton's family and some friends were present. At about 12:30 a.m., a van drove by the house. About three minutes later, Prince saw someone approach the house with something in one hand. Prince yelled, grabbed his ex-girlfriend, and then heard "the loudest bang I ever heard in my life." Prince realized that he, his ex-girlfriend, and the house were on fire. The people outside began shooting at the house.

Prince extinguished the fire that was on him and then went to retrieve a gun. When he looked outside, he saw that the front of the house was on fire and Granderson was shooting an assault-style rifle at the house. Prince tried to get everyone into the house's basement, but once there, he realized that his ex-girlfriend was not present. Prince went back upstairs to find her and saw someone enter the home, carrying a handgun:

He was like right there on the porch, coming into the door, but I see him, but he's look around like, and I see him.... [W]hen we made eye contact, his eyes got big, because I was shocked about who I seen.

Prince then testified that the person was Watkins, who ran back outside. Prince found his ex-girlfriend and went into the basement to wait for police and firefighters to arrive. Prince believed Granderson and Watkins had set the house on fire and then waited for the occupants to come outside so that they could "pick [them] off."

According to Hudson, who was also in Patton's home at the time of the arson, at least three people were shooting into the home. Hudson testified that he believed that Granderson was one of those people, but he was not entirely certain of his identification because he was under the influence of drugs at the time.

Detective Gerow testified that he also investigated the arson. According to Detective Gerow, he visited Prince in the hospital shortly after the arson. Prince was initially hesitant to speak with him, but Prince eventually identified Granderson and Watkins, and he seemed "100 percent positive about his identification."

Prince testified that he told officers that he thought Vanity Mims was driving the van, but he was not certain. According to Prince, "[t]he reason I brought her up was because I know that Vanity was ... associated with [Watkins]." Prince also testified that the word "on the street" was that Mims was going to "come to court and testify and say that [Watkins] was with her." Officer Coleman testified that he interviewed Prince, who told him that Mims "was going to come into court and attempt to be an alibi witness ... on behalf of [Granderson and Watkins]." Mims did not testify at the trial.

Granderson testified that he was not affiliated with any gang, but he was "familiar with the East Side because I stay over there." According to Granderson, after he finished a term of incarceration in December 2011, he kept to himself and did not associate with his old friends. Granderson was especially reluctant to associate with people who carried weapons. In rebuttal, Saginaw Police Department Officer Erik Skabardis testified that on June 12, 2012, he encountered Granderson among East Side people "hanging out" in a vacant lot. He discovered "a bag full of guns" not more than 30 feet from the individuals.

Granderson also testified that on the night of the arson, he was at his sister's home in the Sheridan Park neighborhood. Granderson's sister Brittany Houston testified that Granderson stayed with her and her friend, Ja'Quise O'Daniels, on July 11, 2013. Brittany Houston testified that Granderson watched O'Daniels's one-year-old child while O'Daniels went to Wal-Mart from about midnight to 1:40 a.m. Granderson's sister Brandy Houston also testified that Granderson was in the home at about 1:30 a.m. when she woke up to use the bathroom, and that she knew that O'Daniels had gone to Wal-Mart that evening because she noticed that there were new groceries in the house.

O'Daniels testified that Granderson watched her one-year-old child while she went to Wal-Mart on the night of July 11, 2013. Granderson was still present and awake when she returned from the store. However, on cross-examination, O'Daniels acknowledged that the card she used to purchase groceries showed a purchase at Wal-Mart on July 20, 2013, at about 1:00 a.m., but no purchases on July 11, 2013. O'Daniels admitted that she had made a mistake about the date on which she purchased groceries.

People v. Granderson, No. 321113, 2015 WL 4254954, at *1-3 (Mich. Ct. App. July 14, 2015)(internal footnote omitted).

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed. Id.; 499 Mich. 935, 879 N.W.2d 251 (2016).

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

I. Petitioner was denied his constitutional right of due process of law because evidence of conspiracy was insufficient to support his convictions.

II. Petitioner was denied a fair trial by the admission, over objection, of a gruesome photograph of a dead teen-aged girl who [was] shot to death in a prior incident in which petitioner had no part in, and by inflammatory argument by the prosecutor.

III. Petitioner was denied a fair trial by the admission, over objection, of a photograph of petitioner holding a rifle totally unconnected to the instant offense, which was used improperly by the prosecutor and by the elicitation of testimony that the gun used in the instant case looked like the gun in the photograph.

IV. Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to confrontation and his right to a fair trial by the admission, over objection, of hearsay evidence that petitioner and codefendant were planning false alibis, as well as hearsay evidence from police officers improperly corroborating the star prosecution witness' [sic] testimony and offering an opinion on the ultimate issue of identification.

V. The admission of irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, improper rebuttal testimony on a collateral matter denied petitioner a fair trial.

VI. The trial judge's questioning of petitioner's alibi witnesses during which the judge took on the role of the prosecutor, demonstrated bias against the defense and denied petitioner a fair trial.

VII. Evidence of the prior shooting was inadmissible as to petitioner and denied him a fair trial because he was not present and did not participate in the prior bad act.

VIII. Evidence of assault with intent to murder is insufficient. Petitioner has been denied due process of law and his conviction must be reversed.

IX. Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial by the admission, over objection, of a vast array of photographs of various people flashing gang signs when it was never proven that petitioner was a member

...