Jakubowski v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 26 January 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:19-cv-13136
• Parties: JOHN JAKUBOWSKI, Petitioner, v. WILLIS CHAPMAN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

JOHN JAKUBOWSKI, Petitioner, v. WILLIS CHAPMAN, Respondent.

Case No. 2:19-cv-13136

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

January 26, 2021

Hon. Denise Page Hood

OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND (3) DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

John Jakubowski filed this habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial in the Wayne Circuit Court of felonious assault, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.82, and domestic violence. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.81(2). He was sentenced to 1½ to 6 years for the assault conviction and 28 days for the domestic violence conviction. Petitioner discharged from his sentence on October 29, 2020.

The petition raises four claims: (1) the trial court's questioning of the victim indicated its bias against Petitioner, (2) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the questioning of the victim by the trial court, (3) Petitioner's sentence was unreasonable given his age, and (4) the trial court unconstitutionally scored the sentencing guidelines based on facts not determined beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury.

Because the claims are without merit, the court will deny the petition. The court will also deny a certificate of appealability and deny leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

I. Background

The charges against Petitioner arose from an incident at his Detroit home occurring on April 2, 2015.

Petitioner's wife, Sandra Davis, testified at his jury trial that on April 1, 2015, Petitioner hit her, and her sister-in-law and a friend became aware of his conduct. During the morning hours of April 2, 2015, Petitioner screamed at Davis for getting other people involved in their personal lives. ECF No. 11-4, at 102-104. Petitioner jumped on top of her, grabbed her by the throat, and he punched her in the cheek. Petitioner then took her cell phone and disconnected the land-line phone. Petitioner locked Davis in the bedroom with a padlock. Id., at 102-109.

While Davis was held in the bedroom, Petitioner returned about a dozen times to punch her in the face or head. At some point, Davis convinced Petitioner that she needed to use the bathroom. She tried to make a run for the front door, but Petitioner caught her and slammed her onto the floor. Id. at 109-112.

Davis testified that Petitioner knelt on her chest and swung a golf club at her head. He then locked her back in the bedroom. When he returned to the bedroom, he told her that she could never leave him. After convincing him that she would not leave him, Petitioner allowed her to call her mother provided that she did not tell her what was going on. Petitioner warned Davis that he would shoot her if she complained to her mother. Davis testified that Petitioner was holding a revolver at her side. Nevertheless, Davis told her mother that Petitioner was hitting her. Petitioner put the gun down and started crying. Davis again tried to leave, but Petitioner put her in the kitchen and blocked the door. Id., at 112-117.

Davis eventually managed to get out of the kitchen and tried to leave the house. Petitioner punched and kicked her all the way to the front door, and he said, "Get out of my house, you bitch." Petitioner slammed her head into the wall and punched her in the head. Id., at 117-118.

Davis was able to open the front door and run out of the house. She drove to her mother's house, and her mother took her to Oakwood Hospital. She had bruises on her head, breasts, back, hip, legs and arms. A photograph of her injuries was shown to the jury. Id., at 121-127.

While Davis was in the hospital, Petitioner called multiple times and left messages that he was going to report her for stealing his car. He also threatened tohave her mother arrested for kidnapping. Davis went to the police the next day. Id., at 126-127.

Following cross-examination, which mainly focused on discrepancies between Davis's testimony and her statement to police, the trial court questioned Davis. The court asked Davis about her and Petitioner's employment, whether Petitioner used a cane because of a disability, whether Petitioner had beaten her previously, who had installed the rasps and locks on the interior doors, how long she was locked in the bedroom, whether she had access to a phone, whether she told her sister-in-law what happened, whether she ever returned to Petitioner's house after April 2, and why she did not mention anything about Petitioner having a gun to the police. Id., at 146-153.

The prosecutor recalled Davis for the purpose of admitting her medical records from Oakwood Hospital. Id., at 159-163.

Detective William Drabkowski testified that he took Davis's statement when she came to the domestic violence unit on April 3, 2015. Id., 165-166. He confirmed that the photograph was a fair and accurate representation of her injuries on April 3. Id., at 166-167. On cross-examination, he testified that he did not see any strangulation marks on Davis's neck or a knot on her head, and he did not note any in his report. Id., at 168-171.

After the prosecution rested, Petitioner confirmed on the record that he would not be testifying. ECF No. 11-5, at 5. After closing arguments and instructions by the judge, the jury deliberated and returned with a verdict of guilty of felonious assault and domestic violence. Id., at 45.

At the sentencing hearing, the advisory guidelines were scored to call for a recommended minimum sentence between 0 and 21 months. ECF No. 11-6, at 7-8. The court sentenced Petitioner within the guidelines to 18 months to 6 years for the assault, and 28 days for the domestic violence. Id., at 12-13.

Petitioner was appointed appellate counsel who filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The application raised three claims:

I. The trial judge violated Mr. Jakubowski's due process right to a fair trial when he extensively asked Ms. Davis questions that suggested the judge's belief in the prosecution's case and his belief in Mr. Jakubowski's bad character.

II. Mr. Jakubowski was denied his state and federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel where counsel did not object to Judge Callahan's extensive examination of Ms. Davis.

III. Mr. Jakubowski is entitled to resentencing where the trial court imposed an unreasonable sentence of 1-1/2 to 6 years imprisonment for felonious assault for this middle-age habitual offender.

Petitioner also filed a supplemental pro se brief in support of his application for leave to appeal that raised three additional claims:

I. Jakubowski is entitled to a new trial when the prosecuting attorney withheld exculpatory photographs from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

II. Jakubowski was subjected to ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to raise the untimely surrender of exculpatory photographs by the prosecution, failed to introduce any evidence for the defense, and failed to call Jakubowski as a witness at trial.

III. Jakubowski's sentencing guidelines were unconstitutionally constrained by the trial court's scoring of offense variables through judicial fact-finding of events not admitted to by Jakubowski, nor found by the jury, as prohibited by People v. Lockridge.

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied the delayed application "for lack of merit in the grounds presented." People v. Jakubowski, No. 334155 (Mich. Ct. App. December 9, 2016). Petitioner appealed, but the Michigan Supreme Court denied his application for leave to appeal by form order. People v. Jakubowski, 933 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. 2019) (Table).

II. Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) curtails federal habeas review of state convictions for claims adjudicated on the merits by state courts. A habeas petitioner must generally demonstrate that the state court adjudication was "contrary to" or "involved an unreasonable application of" clearly established Supreme Court law. Id. A decision is "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set ofmaterially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 409.

Under this standard, a federal habeas court may not "issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at 410-11. "[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)).

In the present case, the AEDPA deferential standard of review applies because the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's delayed application for leave to appeal "for lack of merit in the grounds presented." This decision amounted to a decision on the merits. See Werth v. Bell, 692 F. 3d 486, 492-94 (6th Cir. 2012).

III. Analysis

A. Trial Court Bias

Petitioner's first claim asserts that the manner the trial court questioned the victim at trial indicated the court's bias against him. His related second claim asserts that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the questioning.

"Due process requires a fair trial before a judge without actual bias against the defendant or an interest in the outcome of his particular case." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). Because of the difficulty in determining "whether a judge harbors an actual, subjective bias," courts look to "whether, as an...