Lint v. Prelesnik

• Decision Date: 29 July 2011
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 09-10044
• Parties: EDWARD FRANK LINT, Petitioner, v. JOHN PRELESNIK, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

EDWARD FRANK LINT, Petitioner,

v.JOHN PRELESNIK, Respondent.

CASE NO. 09-10044

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: July 29, 2011

HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

OPINION AND ORDER

DENYING THE HABEAS PETITION AND

GRANTING IN PART A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Edward Frank Lint has applied for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition challenges petitioner's convictions for kidnaping by secret confinement and malicious destruction of property over $1,000. Petitioner alleges that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the kidnaping charge; (2) the admission of "other acts" evidence deprived him of due process; (3) trial counsel was ineffective and the state courts erred by rejecting his claims without holding an evidentiary hearing; (4) the exclusion of a letter containing the complainant's signature deprived him of his right to present a defense; and (5) the prosecutor's misconduct deprived him of due process. The Court finds no merit in these claims. Accordingly, the habeas petition is denied. The reasons follow.

I. Background

A. Facts

Petitioner was charged in Macomb County, Michigan with kidnaping, maliciousdestruction of personal property worth at least $1,000, but less than $20,000, and two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. The charges arose from allegations that, in November of 2003, petitioner confined his wife (Maja Lint) in their apartment, sexually penetrated her using force or coercion, and damaged an attic wall in their apartment building while attempting to elude the police. The state court summarized the facts as follows:

[S]hortly after midnight on November 10, 2003, Maja Lint returned to the apartment she shared with Lint. Before going to bed, Maja Lint told Lint that she wanted to leave him. Lint begged Maja Lint not to leave, and he kept shaking her to keep her from falling asleep; Lint allowed her to sleep only after she agreed that they would be able to talk out their problem. When Maja Lint later awoke, however, she told Lint that she still wanted to leave. According to Maja Lint, Lint became angry, emptied her purse and took its contents, burned her passport and green card, and threatened to kill her and her family. He then tackled her to the floor, held her mouth and nose closed until she had difficulty breathing, and tied her up with belts and utility straps. He also shoved a sock into her mouth when he used the telephone, and he sprayed PAM cooking spray on the wall and carpet. He subsequently sprayed some cooking spray in the air and ignited it to demonstrate that the substance could cause a fire.

Maja Lint explained that she wanted to save her life and decided to sweet talk Lint into having sexual relations with her. Lint agreed and removed her restraints. Thereafter, the couple engaged in sexual activities. Lint did not, however, let Maja Lint leave. He took her with him to the store to purchase cigarettes. She was barefoot and, when she tried to attract attention in the store, Lint became angrier. On the way home, Lint stopped at the drive-through windows of two restaurants. Maja Lint said that she was physically ill in the car and too afraid to try to escape. When they returned to the apartment, Lint bound Maja Lint again. He then fell asleep, and she tried to remove the restraints; Lint caught her and tightened the restraints. He also hung a hot clothing iron above her face. At one point during the lengthy ordeal, Lint tethered her to a television, which was hanging halfway over her head. According to Maja Lint, if she had moved, the television would have fallen onto her head. Maja Lint engaged in sexual relations with Lint on a second occasion in order to get him to untie her.

While the couple was together in the apartment, Lint observed apolice car drive through the apartment complex. He apparently thought the police were after him, and he began to clean the apartment, moving the red utility straps into the laundry room. Lint also stayed near Maja Lint when she was unrestrained. He would not let her go to the bathroom alone, and he instructed her to sit in certain places. He threatened to kill her if she moved. When he later went to pick up a pizza, he made Maja Lint accompany him to the store.

On the night of November 10, 2003, according to Maja Lint, she struggled to stay awake, but she could not. She was awakened the next morning at 8:00 a.m. by a ringing telephone. Lint answered the telephone and spoke to Maja Lint's brother, telling him that she had left and that he did not know where she went. Lint fell asleep after taking the telephone call and Maja Lint, who was then unrestrained, was able to escape the apartment. She contacted the police and officers met her at a nearby gas station. They observed that Maja Lint's neck was red, and she was transported to the hospital. Maja Lint suffered lumps on her head, apparently from where Lint hit her, and she had miscellaneous bruising on her body, although she was unsure whether Lint caused this bruising. At trial, Maja Lint claimed that she was unable to tell anyone where she was during the lengthy ordeal and that she never gave Lint permission to restrain her. She also said that she continues to suffer nightmares and has been in counseling since the incident.

After Maja Lint spoke to the police, deputies went to Lint's apartment. They did not immediately locate Lint, but they found red straps in the laundry room and an iron in the bedroom. They also noticed insulation on the ground underneath an attic access. They climbed into the attic and followed footprint tracks through the insulation. The footprints led to a large, crude hole in the drywall between Lint's apartment and the neighboring apartment. Deputies found Lint in the attic of the neighboring apartment, hiding in the insulation. According to Linda May, the apartment manager, the hole in the drywall was not there previously, and the damage cost more than $1,000 to repair.

People v. Lint, No. 256743, 2005 WL 3179637, at *1-2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2005).

B. The Verdict, Sentence, and Direct Appeal

On May 28, 2004, a Macomb County Circuit Court jury found petitioner guilty of kidnaping by secret confinement, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.349, and malicious destruction of property worth $1,000 or more, but less than $20,000, Mich. Comp. Laws§ 750.377a(1)(b)(i). The jury acquitted petitioner of the two criminal-sexual-conduct charges. On June 30, 2004, the trial court sentenced petitioner to concurrent terms of seventeen and a half to forty years for the kidnaping conviction and three years, four months to five years for the malicious-destruction-of-property conviction.

In an appeal of right, petitioner argued that (1) he was denied due process by the jury instruction on secret confinement, (2) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the kidnaping verdict, (3) the prosecutor violated his right not to incriminate himself, (4) the trial court deprived him of due process by admitting evidence of other criminal activity, (5) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of other "bad acts" evidence, (6) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, (7) trial counsel was ineffective, (8) the sentence was outside the guideline range, (9) the sentence was based on facts that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and (10) the cumulative effect of the errors deprived him of a fair trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's convictions in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. See People v. Lint, No. 256743, 2005 WL 3179637 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2005). On September 26, 2006, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded to review the issues. See People v. Lint, 477 Mich. 866 (2006) (table).

C. State Collateral Review

On September 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment. The motion alleged that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to produce additional evidence, (2) the exclusion of a letter signed by Maja Lint deprived him of his right to present a defense, (3) trial counsel failed to communicate a plea offer, and (4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues in the appeal of right. The trialcourt denied petitioner's motion in a reasoned opinion. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on the ground that petitioner failed to establish entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). See People v. Lint, No. 281800 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2008). On October 27, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal for the same reason. See People v. Lint, 482 Mich. 1031 (2008) (table).

D. The Habeas Petition and Responsive Pleading

Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition through counsel on January 7, 2009. The grounds for relief read:

I. Petitioner's due process rights were violated where there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt of kidnaping by secret confinement beyond a reasonable doubt.

II. Petitioner was denied due process of law by the admission of "other acts" evidence that was irrelevant to the charge and unfairly prejudicial.

III. Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, and both the trial court and the Michigan Court of Appeals erred in rejecting his claims to that effect without holding the evidentiary hearing which he requested.

IV. Petitioner was denied his right to a fair trial and the right to present a defense by the trial court's exclusion of a letter containing the signature of "Maja Lint."

V. Petitioner was denied due process of law by the trial prosecutor's misconduct during closing argument.

Respondent John Prelesnik argues through counsel that: (1) petitioner's first claim (insufficient evidence) is not cognizable on habeas review because it challenges the elements of the state-law offense rather than the level of evidence proving that...