Hoath v. Howard

• Decision Date: 12 September 2022
• Docket Number: 19-12594
• Parties: ASHLEY HOATH, Petitioner, v. JEREMY HOWARD,[1]Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

ASHLEY HOATH, Petitioner, v. JEREMY HOWARD,^[1]Respondent.

No. 19-12594

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 12, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In 2017, Jeremy Barron was killed. Authorities believed that Ashley Hoath and Jay Clark plotted to kill Barron because Barron had constantly abused Hoath during their relationship. After being charged in state court with “open” murder, Hoath ultimately chose to plead guilty to second-degree murder. She was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison-10 years more than the guideline for her minimum sentence. Hoath then sought to withdraw her plea: she argued that her choice to plead guilty was not a fully informed choice. In particular, prior to her plea, Hoath was never informed that if she went to trial, a jury might convict her of manslaughter, a lesser-included offense to murder. The state trial court denied the motion to withdraw her plea, and the state appellate courts did not grant leave to appeal.

So Hoath turns to federal court via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Her primary claim is that without knowing about the possibility of a manslaughter conviction, her plea was not intelligent, knowing, and voluntary. For the reasons that follow, the Court will not grant a writ.

A.

In 2017, authorities discovered Jeremy Barron's body in the woods of Hillsdale County, Michigan (PageID.117-118.)^[2] After some investigation, the authorities arrested Ashley Hoath and Jay Clark for Barron's death. (PageID.87, 98, 119.) Hoath faced charges of “open” murder, which includes the possibility of a first-degree-murder conviction, and conspiracy to commit murder. (ECF No. 8-2, PageID.154-155.)

Prior to trial, Hoath attempted to suppress her confession. (See ECF No. 8-3, PageID.160.) During the police investigation, Hoath had undergone about four hours of questioning in preparation for a polygraph test and then took the test itself. (See PageID.174.) After the test the detective told Hoath that she had “failed miserably” and that “[he] knew she . . . had planned the death.” (PageID.185-186, 212.) The detective and Hoath then began a discussion. At the suppression hearing, Hoath testified, “I told [the detective] at least thirty times that what he was saying was not right.... I just wanted it to be over [with] so I finally just agreed with whatever he said.” (PageID.213.) When asked if she had told the detective that she and Clark planned to kill Barron, Hoath explained, “Over and over again, I said, ‘No.' . . . At the very end when I was just agreeing to get out of there, [I said] yes. I was exhausted and tired of arguing with him.” (PageID.216.) The court denied the motion to suppress, finding the detective's account “much more accurate and truthful than that of Ms. Hoath.” (PageID.228.)

Ultimately, Hoath decided to plead guilty. Under the plea deal, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the open murder and conspiracy charges if Hoath agreed to plead guilty to second-degree murder and testify at Clark's trial. (PageID.245.) (Hoath never did testify at Clark's trial; she instead tried to withdraw her plea when she took the stand. See People v. Clark, 948 N.W.2d 604, 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).)

Before accepting Hoath's guilty plea, the trial court engaged in thorough questioning to ensure that Hoath understood the charges and penalties she was facing and that she was giving up her trial-related constitutional rights by pleading guilty. (PageID.236-246.)

The trial court also established an adequate factual basis for the guilty plea.

During the colloquy, Hoath told the court that Barron had been extremely abusive to her, “physically, sexually[,] . . . [e]motionally[,] [and] mentally[.]” (PageID.247.) She explained, “Every time I escaped, he would find me and he would bring me back. Eventually, my kids were taken because of the domestic violence in this situation.” (Id.)

Hoath also informed the court that she met Clark in a bar in November 2016. (PageID.248.) According to Hoath, “I had told [Clark], . . . ‘The only way I'll ever . . . be able to get rid of Jeremy [Barron] is if I kill him.' . . . [Clark] said, ‘That can happen.'” (PageID.248.)

Hoath then preceded to tell the court that after Barron had gone to jail on sexual-assault charges (not against Hoath), Clark had given her a handgun. (PageID.249.) Hoath explained that she and Barron's mother bailed Barron out of jail: “I thought he would [be] better.... He was not better. He was still very abusive. He became physically abusive one night and then I did grab the gun [that Clark gave me], but I couldn't shoot him. I managed to get away.” (PageID.250.)

Hoath then told the trial court about the plan to kill Barron. Hoath recalled telling Clark about Barron's latest abuse and that she could not follow through on killing Barron. (PageID.250.) Clark told Hoath that if he saw Barron once, he would shoot him. (PageID.250.) During her colloquy, Hoath admitted that, at that point, she and Clark decided to kill Barron. (PageID.251.) Hoath further admitted that she and Clark planned to kill Barron to stop the abuse. (PageID.253.)

An opportunity arose on February 8, 2017, when Barron lost his phone and Clark “offered to give him a ride to help him find it.” (PageID.250.) Hoath informed the court that she knew Clark was going to kill Barron, that “we weren't gonna go find the phone.” (PageID.252.) During her colloquy, Hoath explained that Clark drove, she was in the passenger seat, and Barron was in the back. (PageID.254.) After some time, she saw a gun in Clark's lap. (PageID.255.) Clark said, “[g]et her done[?],” and Hoath responded, “[y]eah, get 'er done.” (PageID.255-56.) According to Hoath, Clark then turned around and shot Barron four times. (PageID.256.)

During the plea colloquy, Hoath admitted that Barron posed no danger to her at the moment Clark shot Barron. (PageID.261.) Asked by the court whether Hoath was acting in “self-defense or some mitigation,” she responded, “No.” (Id.) The trial court found Hoath's plea was “freely, understandingly, accurately and voluntarily given[.]” (Id.)

A few months later, in January 2018, the state trial court sentenced Hoath. Although the court acknowledged that Barron had abused Hoath, the court also stated, “It's not acceptable, miss, under any . . . justification or alleged justification. He posed no problem to you. He was sitting in jail on a [criminal-sexual conduct] charge. He posed no further threat.” (PageID.278.) The court added, “I've heard the Clark trial. I listened to the entire proceeding. I learned as a result of that proceeding that there appears to be two shooters shot by two different guns. And then his body was disposed of. And then efforts were made to cover up that murder.” (Id.) Although Hoath's guidelines were 15 to 25 years in prison, the court sentenced Hoath to a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 40 years in prison. (PageID.279.)

B.

Following her sentencing, Hoath, through appellate counsel, filed a motion to withdraw her plea. Hoath argued that her trial counsel had been ineffective by not advising her at the time of her plea that voluntary manslaughter was a lesser-included offense to murder. (See PageID.326.) Hoath argued that before her plea, she should have been advised that she had the option of trying to convince a jury that she was only guilty of manslaughter, a “much less serious offense.” (Id.) Hoath argued that Barron's extensive abuse would have supported a lesser, manslaughter conviction. (See id.) In support of her motion, Hoath submitted an affidavit from her trial counsel that stated, “at no time during my representation of Ashley Hoath did I discuss with her the lesser offense of Voluntary Manslaughter and how it might apply in her case.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.16; ECF No. 8-7, PageID.326, 329 (referencing affidavit).)

The trial court denied Hoath's request to withdraw her plea. The court commented that Clark had in fact gone to trial and was convicted of first-degree murder. (PageID.328.) And apparently relying on evidence from Clark's trial, the court stated that “[Barron] was executed by two shooters” and “carried to the drop site.” (PageID.338.) In the midst of reading back Hoath's plea colloquy the Court “digress[ed] a little”: “[T]his isn't manslaughter. This was an outright execution. This wasn't manslaughter in any degree. It doesn't meet the elements of manslaughter.” (PageID.334.) The court explained that for the crime of murder to be reduced to manslaughter, Hoath needed to show “emotional excitement to the point that a reasonable person might have acted on impulse without thinking twice from passion instead of judgment” and that she “acted before a reasonable time had passed to calm down and return to reason.” (PageID.337-338.) The court concluded, “when the facts don't support the instruction of manslaughter, the Court has a responsibility not to give it. I did not give a manslaughter instruction in the Clark case because the facts did not warrant an instruction on manslaughter nor would it warrant in the Hoath case. So regardless of whether [trial counsel] talked about manslaughter or not, it's inconsequential because it wouldn't apply. Under the facts of this case, it wouldn't have been given.” (PageID.339.)

Because Hoath pled guilty, she did not have a right to appeal but instead needed permission to appeal. (See PageID.241-242.) She sought permission, arguing that she needed to be “advised of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter before her plea to second degree murder could be an understand[ing] waiver of her rights to present a defense based on the lesser offense[.]” (PageID.305.) Hoath argued that her...