Hadley v. Harry

• Decision Date: 22 March 2012
• Docket Number: Case Number 09-CV-10297
• Parties: SHANNON HADLEY, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEE HARRY, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

SHANNON HADLEY, Petitioner,

v.SHIRLEE HARRY, Respondent.

Case Number 09-CV-10297

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Dated: March 22, 2012

Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, Shannon Hadley, presently confined at the Carson City Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan, has filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions of armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Petitioner was found guilty of these crimes following a bench trial in the Wayne Circuit Court and was sentenced to 12-20 years for the armed robbery conviction and a consecutive two years for the firearm conviction. The petition asserts nine claims: (1) the trial court failed to suppress the in-court identification of Petitioner after a suggestive confrontation at the preliminary examination; (2) insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain Petitioner's convictions; (3) the prosecutor failed to disclose fingerprint analysis results, and defense counsel was ineffective when he failed to move to dismiss the case based upon the prosecutor's failure to produce this potentially exculpatory evidence; (4) Petitioner's trial was rendered unfair by the erroneous admission of prior bad acts evidence under Michigan Rule of Evidence 404(B); (5) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counselby his attorney's failure to investigate and move for a mistrial; (6) the prosecutor elicited false testimony from a witness; (7) the cumulative errors committed by the trial judge violated Petitioner's state and federal due process guarantee to a fair and impartial trier of fact; (8) Petitioner is entitled to resentencing where his sentence was based upon uncounseled convictions; and (9) Petitioner has shown cause and prejudice to excuse any procedural defaults. The respondent filed an answer to the petition arguing that Petitioner's claims were reasonably rejected by the state courts and that review of his claims is procedurally barred. The Court finds that none of Petitioner's claims has merit. The Court will therefore deny the petition on that basis.

I. Background

At Petitioner's bench trial, Charles Drake testified that he was at a self-service car wash on Michigan Avenue on the evening of December 28, 2002. While he was putting the finishing touches on his tires, a man tugged on his elbow and pointed a chrome-plated pistol at him. The man told Drake to give him money and his wallet or he would kill him. The man then took Drake's wallet out of his pocket while holding the pistol down at his side.

The man then told Drake to give him his car keys and, when Drake did, Petitioner threw them near a dumpster. Petitioner directed Drake to walk toward the street while he walked back towards the back of the car wash. Moments later, Drake heard a commotion on the corner. A man in the street identified himself as a police officer, and Drake told him he had just been robbed. Drake failed to identify anyone at a pretrial line-up procedure, but he identified Petitioner at the preliminary examination and at trial as the robber.

Sgt. Odell Godbold testified that he was on surveillance duty near the carwash becauseseveral robberies had occurred there. He saw an individual armed with a handgun approach a customer. The man with the gun pointed it at the customer, and Godbold saw the man place his hand in the customer's pocket. As the perpetrator walked away, Godbold started to pursue him on foot. When the man was cornered by Godbold and another officer, Godbold saw him throw away the handgun and give himself up. Godbold identified Petitioner as the man who was arrested at the scene, and that Petitioner had remained in his eyesight from the time of the crime until the arrest. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of other officers present at the scene.

Petitioner testified in his own defense. He claimed that he had stopped on Michigan Avenue to urinate behind a vacant building when an officer arrested him.

The trial court found Petitioner guilty of armed robbery and felony-firearm but acquitted him of the felon in possession of a firearm charge. The court found that the entire episode was observed by police officers - from the robbery to Petitioner's arrest - and futher found the prosecution witnesses credible, while Petitioner's testimony was not believable.

The court subsequently sentenced Petitioner to 12-20 years imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction and a consecutive two years for the felony-firearm conviction.

Petitioner filed a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the following claims:

I. Defendant was denied his due process right to a fair trial where the court denied his motion to suppress the in- court identification and allowed the complainant to identify him in court, despite the fact that he did not definitively identify him in a lineup, and where thereafter he viewed him at a suggestive confrontation at the preliminary examination.

II. Defendant's state and federal constitutional rights were violated when the evidence was insufficient when viewed in a light most favorable to theprosecution and could not justify a reasonable person finding all the elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt

III. Defendant's state and federal due process rights were violated when the fingerprint analysis was not turned over to defense counsel and defense counsel was ineffective when he failed to move to dismiss based upon the prosecutor's failure to produce potentially exculpatory evidence.

IV. Defendant was denied his state and federal constitutional right to a fair trial where the prosecutor referred to inadmissible 404(B) evidence involving a prior armed robbery by a vehicle like the one in which he was driving.

V. Defendant was denied his state and federal constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's failure to investigate, bring a motion for mistrial and to dismiss.

The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished per curiam opinion affirming Petitioner's convictions. People v. Hadley, 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 1143 (Mich. Ct. App. May 10, 2005). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, but it was denied by standard order. People v. Hadley, 708 N.W.2d 404 (2006).

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, raising several new claims. On November 9, 2006, the trial court issued an opinion and order denying Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment on the ground that "defendant had not shown good cause for failure to raise the allegations in his appeal of right; nor had he shown actual prejudice. Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)(3)."

Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave to appeal this decision with the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the following claims in his brief:

I. Were Defendant's state and federal due process rights to a fair and impartial trial violated where the prosecutor failed to correct and/or bring to the court's attention that a state witness had testified falsely where knowledge of the falsestatement was known or should have been recognized as false as early as the preliminary examination? Additionally, was trial counsel ineffective when he failed to alert the court to this false testimony at trial?

II. Did the cumulative errors committed by the judge within the fact finding process violate Defendant's state and federal due process guarantee to a fair and impartial trier of fact in his bench trial?

III. Is Defendant entitled to resentencing where his current sentence was based upon multiple uncounseled convictions in direct violation of the Tucker-Moore ruling and Defendant's constitutional right to be sentenced based on accurate information? Additionally, was trial counsel constitutionally ineffective in failing to argue against these uncounseled convictions being used at sentencing?

IV. Has Defendant shown "good cause" and "actual prejudice" and thus entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)?

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's delayed application "for failure to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D)." People v. Hadley, No. 277368 (Mich. Ct. App. October 23, 2007). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, but it was also denied under Rule 6.508(D). People v. Hadley, 748 N.W.2d 805 (2008).

Petitioner then filed the instant application for habeas relief, asserting the same claims he presented to the state courts.

II. Discussion

a. Legal Standards

The amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), circumscribe the standard of review federal courts must apply when considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus raising constitutional claims.Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003). As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) permits a federal court to issue the writ only if the state court decision on a federal issue "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court," or it amounted to "an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2); Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429, 433 (6th Cir. 1998). Under that review standard, mere error by the state court does not justify issuance of the writ; rather, the state court's application of federal law "must have been objectively unreasonable." Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000) (internal quotes omitted)). Additionally, this Court must presume the correctness of state court factual determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) ("In a proceeding...