Green v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 06 November 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2:18-CV-12689
• Parties: WALTER EDWARD GREEN, #964255, Petitioner, v. WILLIS CHAPMAN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

WALTER EDWARD GREEN, #964255, Petitioner, v. WILLIS CHAPMAN,¹ Respondent.

CASE NO. 2:18-CV-12689

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

November 6, 2020

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

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

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Walter Edward Green ("Petitioner") was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.316(1)(a), third-degree fleeing or eluding a police officer, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 257.602a(3), and possession of a firearm during thecommission of a felony, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b, following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction, a concurrent term of two to five years imprisonment on the fleeing or eluding conviction, and a consecutive term of two years imprisonment on the felony firearm conviction in 2015. In his pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of other acts evidence, and the conduct of the prosecutor. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

II. Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner's convictions arise from his role as the driver in a fatal drive-by shooting done by his friend, "Hobsquad" Lloyd West, on September 11, 2013. Petitioner was tried in a joint trial with co-defendant West. 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:

This case arises from the drive-by shooting death of Robert Carter. Carter's brother, Kevin Lovely, testified that he was in the family's living room when he heard six gunshots in rapid succession. He ran outside and saw that his brother was bleeding from his chest. Lovely recounted that his brother stated he was unable to breathe. Lovely called an ambulance, but then decided to take his brotherto the hospital himself. On the way to the hospital, Carter continued to state that he could not breathe, and, as they arrived at the hospital, he told Lovely that "Hobsquad Lloyd" shot him. Carter died at the hospital from a gunshot wound to the chest.

People v. Green, No. 328840, 2016 WL 6905927, *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2016) (unpublished).

Following his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals raising the same claims presented on habeas review. The court denied relief on those claims and affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences. Id. at pp. 1-5. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v. Green, 500 Mich. 1022, 896 N.W.2d 438 (2017).

Petitioner thereafter filed his federal habeas petition raising the following claims:

I. The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish his identity as the driver involved in the shooting and failed to present sufficient evidence that he acted with the requisite intent to support his first-degree murder conviction as an aider and abettor.

II. The admission of other acts evidence involving another shooting was improper and denied him due process. Denial of right to a fair trial. A recorded interview which contains exculpatory statements by a co-defendants was included in his jury, but excluded from my own.

III. The prosecution engaged in misconduct by introducing the other acts evidence, by attempting to introduce inadmissible hearsay and commenting on it during closing arguments, and by admittingevidence about the theft of the car used in the shooting and the cumulative effect of such actions denied him due process.

Respondent has filed an answer to the habeas petition contending that it should be denied because all of the claims lack merit and the last claim is also procedurally defaulted.

III. Standard of Review

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:

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.

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 [the Supreme] 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 [the Supreme] 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, "[i]n order for a federal court find a state court's application of [Supreme Court] precedent 'unreasonable,' the state court's decision must have been more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court's application must have been 'objectively unreasonable.'" Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (citations omitted); see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 409. The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'" Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010)(quoting Lindh, 521 U.S. at 333, n. 7); Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)).

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)). The Supreme Court has emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Id. (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003)). Pursuant to § 2254(d), "a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or ... could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision" of the Supreme Court. Id. Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner must 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.; see also White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419-20 (2014). Federal judges "are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their decisions only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong." Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015). A habeas petitioner cannot prevail as long as it is within the "realm ofpossibility" that fairminded jurists could find the state court decision to be reasonable. Woods v. Etherton, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1149, 1152 (2016).

Section 2254(d)(1) limits a federal habeas court's review to a determination of whether the state court's decision comports with clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412; see also Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 122 (2009) (noting that the Supreme Court "has held on numerous occasions that it is not 'an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law' for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by this Court") (quoting Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125-26 (2008) (per curiam)); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003). Section 2254(d) "does not require a state court to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have been 'adjudicated on the merits.'" Harrington, 562 U.S. at 100. Furthermore, it "does not require citation of [Supreme Court] cases-indeed, it does not even require awareness of [Supreme Court] cases, so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them." Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); see also Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 16.

The requirements of clearly established law are to be determined solely by Supreme Court precedent. Thus, "circuit precedent does not constitute 'clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court'" and it cannot providethe basis for federal habeas relief. Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 48-49 (2012) (per curiam); see also Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1, 2 (2014) (per curiam). The decisions of lower federal courts,...