Johnigan v. Elo

• Decision Date: 17 May 2002
• Docket Number: No. Civ. 00-CV-73445-DT.,Civ. 00-CV-73445-DT.
• Citation: 207 F.Supp.2d 599
• Parties: Gaylin JOHNIGAN, Petitioner, v. Frank ELO, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

207 F.Supp.2d 599

Gaylin JOHNIGAN, Petitioner, v. Frank ELO, Respondent.

No. Civ. 00-CV-73445-DT.

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

May 17, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gaylin Johnigan, Adrian, MI, pro se.

Brenda E. Turner, Bethany L. Scheib, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

STEEH, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Gaylin Johnigan, ("petitioner"), presently confined at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his application, filed pro se, petitioner challenges the legality of his conviction after a bench trial in the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit of one count of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony ("felony firearm"). M.C.L. § 750.227b. Petitioner was sentenced to ten to twenty years imprisonment for assault with intent to commit murder and a consecutive two years imprisonment for felony firearm. Petitioner challenges both convictions and sentences. The Court concludes for the following reasons that the petition must be denied.

II. Factual Background

Petitioner was convicted of intentionally shooting a neighbor in the back. The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the facts of the case as follows:

The prosecutor here presented evidence that the victim approached defendant and asked to borrow $10, which led to an argument. The argument escalated and, at one point, the victim picked up a chair, held it over his shoulder ready to swing it at defendant, but then put it down. The victim then left the scene and returned to his apartment. Approximately thirty minutes after this confrontation, the victim left his apartment, without any weapon, and went to get the mail. On his way to the mailbox, he passed defendant's apartment, heard the door open, and felt pain in his back. The victim had been shot and, as a result, spent three months in the hospital. Shortly thereafter, defendant told two police officers that there had been a struggle and that there was an accidental gun shot [sic]. Defendant also stated that when he shot the victim, the victim did not have a gun, and they did not struggle.

People v. Johnigan, Docket No. 200601, 1999 WL 33453395 (March 19, 1999) (per curiam).

Medical records established that the victim was shot in the back, although he had wounds in both the back and the abdomen. The back wound was an entrance wound, that is, a wound caused by the bullet from a gunshot entering the body. The abdominal wound was an exit wound, a wound caused by the bullet from a gunshot leaving the body after passing through it. Much of the victim's digestive tract was destroyed. In the face of overwhelming medical evidence that the victim was shot in the back, as well as the victim's testimony, petitioner denied shooting the victim in the back, even after conviction at his sentencing.

Petitioner presented an insanity and diminished capacity defense, as well as the defense of self-defense. Evidence was presented indicating that petitioner suffered from chronic mental illness. However, contradictory evidence was presented indicating that petitioner was not mentally ill at the time of the shooting. Concerning whether petitioner may have been psychotic at the time of the offense, one expert testified that petitioner was experiencing command hallucinations at the time of the offense. However, petitioner told jail personnel shortly after his arrest that he had not heard voices for two years. Petitioner never told the arresting or interrogating officers that he was hearing voices at the time of the shooting.¹

The trial court found that petitioner was legally sane, not suffering from a diminished capacity to conform his behavior to the law, and not presently mentally ill. The evidence that petitioner expressed remorse immediately after shooting the victim and that petitioner disposed of the gun by leaving the scene and giving it to someone within minutes of shooting the victim indicated that petitioner was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. Further, petitioner initially denied knowing whether he had shot the victim, then later admitted that he had been lying about this. Petitioner initially claimed that the victim had a gun during the second confrontation and that the victim approached petitioner and they scuffled before the gun went off. Petitioner later admitted that he also had been lying about this; the victim had no gun, was in fact unarmed, and there was no scuffle. Petitioner also told police that he did not own a gun, but later admitted that he shot the victim with his (petitioner's) gun, a black .357 Magnum caliber revolver. These facts also supported the trial judge's finding that petitioner was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct, that he was not legally insane, and was able to conform his conduct to the law, for a person who is legally insane, or whose mental capacity is so diminished that he cannot conform his conduct to the law, is unlikely to lie about such matters in an attempt to evade legal responsibility.

III. Procedural History

Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and felony firearm on September 5, 1996, after a bench trial before Judge Kym L. Worthy of the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit. Petitioner was sentenced on September 25, 1996, to ten to twenty years for assault with intent to commit murder and a consecutive two year term for felony firearm.

Petitioner appealed his conviction as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction in an unpublished per curiam opinion. See People v. Johnigan, 1999 WL 33453395, Docket No. 200601 (March 19, 1999) (per curiam). The Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner's delayed application for leave to appeal because it was "not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court." People v. Johnigan, 461 Mich. 921, 604 N.W.2d 681 (1999).

On or about May 22, 2000, petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, raising the following claims for relief:

I. Because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner did not shoot the victim in self-defense, petitioner's conviction is not supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence.

II. Because the evidence established that petitioner was not guilty by reason of insanity, or that he suffered from diminished capacity when he shot the victim, or was guilty but mentally ill, petitioner's conviction is not supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence.

III. Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the trial court admitted an incriminating statement petitioner made to police officer Michael Kawa soon after the police arrived to investigate the shooting.

Respondent has answered the petition. Respondent contends that the petition should be denied because petitioner's claims lack merit.

IV. Standard of Review

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214 ("AEDPA") altered the standard of review federal courts must apply when reviewing applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The AEDPA applies to all habeas petitions filed after the effective date of the act, April 24, 1996. Because petitioner's application was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the AEDPA, including the amended standard of review, apply to this case.

As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) imposes the following standard of review that a federal court must utilize when reviewing applications for a writ of habeas corpus:

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 proceedings.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Therefore, federal courts are bound by a state court's adjudication of a petitioner's claims unless the state court's decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Franklin v. Francis, 144 F.3d 429 (6th Cir.1998); Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940 (6th Cir.2000). Additionally, this Court must presume the correctness of state court factual determinations. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)²; see also Cremeans v Chapleau, 62 F.3d 167, 169 (6th Cir.1995) ("We give complete deference to state court findings unless they are clearly erroneous").

The United States Supreme Court has explained the proper application of the "contrary to" clause as follows:

A state-court decision will certainly be contrary to [the Supreme Court's] clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases. . . .

A state-court decision will also be contrary to this Court's clearly established precedent if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [the Court's] precedent.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

With respect to the "unreasonable application" clause of § 2254(d)(1), the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court should analyze a claim for habeas corpus relief under the "unreasonable application"...