Kyle v. Romanowski
| Decision Date | 17 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:08-CV-14781 |
| Parties | RAYMOND LEE KYLE #448371, Petitioner, v. KENNETH ROMANOWSKI, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH
Michigan prisoner Raymond Lee Kyle has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 challenging his 2003 Berrien County Circuit Court convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316(1)(a), second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317, manslaughter, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.321, two counts of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84, arson of a dwelling house, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.72, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole on the first-degree murder conviction, 37½ years to 58 years 4 months imprisonment on the second-degree murder conviction, 8 years 4 months to 15 years imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction, 5 years 7 months to 10 years imprisonment on the assault convictions, 11 years 8 months to 20 yearsimprisonment on the arson conviction, and a consecutive term of two years imprisonment on the felony firearm conviction.
In his pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the composition of the jury, a limitation on cross-examination, the voluntariness of Petitioner's police statement, prosecutorial misconduct, the ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, the use of jury questions, the presentation of perjured testimony, and the denial of an evidentiary hearing. The Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief on his claims and denies the petition. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Petitioner's convictions arise from the shooting deaths of his mistress, her friend, and her brother, his assaults upon two of her children, and the burning of her residence in Benton Township, Michigan in January, 2002. The Michigan Court of Appeals provided a factual overview of the case, which is presumed correct on habeas review, see Monroe v. Smith, 197 F. Supp. 2d 753, 758 (E.D. Mich. 2001), aff'd. 41 F. App'x 730 (6th Cir. 2002), as follows:
Defendant was married, but was having an extra-marital affair with Sheila Taylor, who lived with her brother, Charles Taylor, and her three children: twelve-year-old Dontrael Smith, ten-year-old Nicholas Taylor, and eight-year-old Shaquill Crayton. Sometime after midnight on January 11, 2002, defendant went to Sheila's house and the two had an argument. Sheila called Alice Palmer for assistance and asked her to come over to the house. Sometime during the night, the children woke up to a loud noise like somebody falling on the floor. Nicholas got out of bed and went to see what was happening. Sheila and Palmer were lying motionless on the floor, Charles was on the floor in his bedroom screaming, and defendant was going through the kitchen drawer looking for a knife. when defendant saw Nicholas, defendant punched him and hit him in the head with a clothes iron. Defendant then pulled out a knife and stabbed Nicholas in the chest. Defendant followed Nicholas to the children's bedroom where he stabbed Dontrael in the shoulder. Defendant then went into Charles' room, and thechildren heard Charles screaming and repeatedly yelling, "Quit." Defendant then loaded the children into Palmer's car and drove them to a nearby dirt road and forced them at gunpoint to get into the trunk of the car. Defendant drove the children back to their house and left them in the trunk of the car with the engine running, the radio playing, the headlights on, and the windshield wipers on.
Firefighters responded to a call that Sheila's house was on fire and arrived on the scene at 5:12 a.m. Inside the house, firefighters found the dead bodies of Sheila, Charles, and Palmer. Sheila's body was very badly burned, and had a gunshot wound that passed through her arm into her chest, a stab wound in the arm, and significant hemorrhages in her head. Palmer's body had a gunshot wound that passed through her arms and torso and a bruise over her eye. Charles' hands and feet were bound, and his body was burned and had three gunshot wounds, four stab wounds, and multiple bludgeoning wounds to the head. Police also found four knife handles with the blades broken off and three spent shell casings from a.357 caliber Sig Glock handgun. A fire investigation expert testified that the fire had been intentionally set at approximately 4:45 a.m. and had three causes: (1) the introduction of flammable liquid onto Sheila's body, (2) the introduction of flammable liquid onto Charles's body, and (3) the introduction of a towel onto the hot burner of the stove (Tr II, p 470).
After the firefighters extinguished the fire, they searched the perimeter of the house and discovered the children in the trunk of Palmer's car. Dontrael had a blade sticking out of his shoulder and had severe laceration wounds on his arm. Nicholas had laceration wounds on his head and chest. Shaquill had superficial wounds, including a small cut and abrasion on his stomach.
People v. Kyle, No. 248199, 2005 WL 544155, *1-2 (Mich. App. March 8, 2005) (unpublished).
Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals asserting that: (1) the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Nicholas's prior inconsistent statement could not be used as substantive evidence, (3) the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude two jurors based upon their race, (4) the trial court erred in refusing to allow cross-examination of witnesses after jury questions, (5) the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his police statement, (6) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, (7) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's rulings and the prosecutor's conduct, for eliciting testimony from a police officerthat Nicholas embellished parts of his statement, and for failing to seek suppression of the gun recovered from his house, and (8) he was denied a fair trial due to the cumulative effect of the errors. The court denied relief on those claims and affirmed his convictions. Id. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court raising the same claims, as well as additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. People v. Kyle, 474 Mich. 933, 706 N.W.2d 20 (2005).
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court asserting that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of gruesome photographs and the admission of psychological exam, for failing to obtain Alice Palmer's criminal records, for failing to have DNA testing done, for failing to present an insanity defense, for failing to impeach Nicholas and Dontael, and for failing to call Mike Reupert and Christine Cox as witnesses, (2) the trial court erred in allowing jury questions, (3) the prosecution presented perjured testimony by Detective Vaught, and (4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues on direct appeal. The trial court denied the motion pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)(3), finding that Petitioner had not shown cause, i.e., that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the claims on direct appeal, or prejudice as the claims lacked merit. See People v. Kyle, No. 2002 400252-FC (Berrien Co. Cir. Ct. Sept. 1, 2006). Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising the same claims, as well as a claim that the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on collateral review. The court denied leave to appeal "for failure to meet the burden of establishing entitled to relief under MCR 6.508(D)." See People v. Kyle, No. 279206 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2008) (unpublished). Petitioner filed an application for leave toappeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was similarly denied. See People v. Kyle, 482 Mich. 971, 755 N.W.2d 175 (2008).
Petitioner thereafter instituted this federal habeas action, essentially raising the same claims presented to the state courts on direct appeal and collateral review of his convictions. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied because the claims lack merit and/or are barred by procedural default.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), codified 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., governs this case because Petitioner filed his habeas petition after the AEDPA's effective date. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). The AEDPA provides:
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 proceeding.
28 U.S.C. §2254(d) (1996).
"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...
To continue reading
Request your trial