Henry v. Balcarel, Case No. 17-cv-13362
Decision Date | 05 November 2020 |
Docket Number | Case No. 17-cv-13362 |
Parties | Travis James Henry, Petitioner, v. Erik Balcarel, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS[1], DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PetitionerTravis James Henry filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.(ECF No. 1.)Petitioner is confined at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan pursuant to a 2014 armed robbery conviction by a jury.(Id.)He raises four claims for habeas relief: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of other acts evidence; (3) the admission of allegedly irrelevant evidence; and (4) the conduct of the prosecutor.(Id.)The Court denies the petition, denies a certificate of appealability and denies permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Petitioner's conviction arises from the robbery of a Halo Burger restaurant in Genesee County, Michigan in 2013.The Michigan Court of Appeals described the relevant facts, which are presumed correct on habeas review, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413(6th Cir.2009), as follows:
People v. Henry, 315 Mich. App. 130, 133-35(2016).
Following his conviction and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals raising several claims of error, including those raised on habeas review.The court denied relief on those claims and affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence.Id. at 135-50.Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order.People v. Henry, 500 Mich. 931(2017).The court also denied reconsideration.People v. Henry, 500 Mich. 1004, 895 N.W.2d 524(2017).
Petitioner then filed his federal habeas petition raising the following claims:
1.)Insufficient Evidence to Sustain conviction of Armed Robbery 2.)The Court erred in allowing improper 404(b)evidence. 3.)Admission of irrelevant evidence.4.)Improperly shifting burden of proof.
Respondent has filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied because the last claim is procedurally defaulted and all claims lack merit.(ECF No. 8.)
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.AEDPA provides in relevant part:
"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 Courtcases]' or if it 'confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [that] precedent.'"Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16(2003)(per curiam)(quotingWilliams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06(2000));see alsoBell 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 Court but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of petitioner's case."Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520(2003)(quotingWilliams, 529 U.S. at 413);see alsoBell, 535 U.S. at 694.However, Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21(citations omitted);see alsoWilliams, 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)(quotingLindh, 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 'fair[-]minded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision."Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101(2011)(citingYarborough 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.(citingLockyer 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 fair[-]minded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with theholding 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 fair[-]minded disagreement."Id;see alsoWhite 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 if it is within the "realm of possibility" that fair[-]minded jurists could find the state-court decision to be reasonable.Woods v. Etherton, 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...
To continue reading
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology
