McCray v. Horton
Decision Date | 24 August 2021 |
Docket Number | 2:18-cv-84 |
Parties | Vickery J. McCray, Petitioner, v. Connie Horton, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Gordon J. Quist Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Vickery J. McCray is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe Chippewa County, Michigan. Following a two-day jury trial in the Ingham County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of criminal sexual assault in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment. On November 19, 2014, the court sentenced Petitioner as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent respective prison terms of 25 to 50 years and nine years, 6 months to 25 years.
On June 14, 2018, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the application is deemed filed when handed to prison authorities for mailing to the federal court. Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2002).
The petition raises 11 grounds for relief, as follows:
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11-17, 22-30.) In a supplement to his habeas petition, Petitioner also raises an additional claim:
XII. Petitioner is arguing that the specific evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to satisfy the elements of assault by strangulation or suffocation.
Respondent has filed an answer to the petition (ECF No. 15) stating that the grounds should be denied because they are non-cognizable or meritless. Upon review and applying the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA), I respectfully recommend that the Court deny the petition.
McCray and his victim were neighbors in Lansing, Michigan. (ECF No. 16-7, PageID.643.) On past occasions they had smoked crack cocaine together and had engaged in sex. (Id., PageID.643, 648.) The victim stated that McCray was her father's friend and that she was never in a romantic or sexual relationship with McCray. (Id., PageID.631, 634.) On October 25, 2013, the victim went to McCray's house to share a rock of cocaine. (Id., PageID.648.) She left and returned later that evening when McCray asked her to bring him money. (Id., PageID.642-643.) The victim had been drinking alcohol and drank more while at McCray's home. (Id., PageID.631.) McCray smoked crack cocaine. (Id., PageID.643.)
At some point, when the victim tried to leave, McCray forcefully stopped her. (Id., PageID.644.) McCray pushed her to the floor and sexually assaulted her. (Id., PageID.644-645.) The victim was able to call 911 and the events during the assault were recorded. (Id., PageID.628, 635-636, 645.) After the police arrived, McCray was taken into custody. (Id., PageID.629, 636, 640.) The victim was taken to the hospital. (Id., PageID.645.)
The jurors deliberated for about five hours before finding Petitioner guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first-degree and unlawful imprisonment. (ECF No. 16-8, PaigeID.687-690.)
Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, appealed his conviction raising the issue identified as habeas issue II. (ECF No. 16-10, PageID.739.) Thereafter, McCray filed his own pro per supplemental brief, known in Michigan as a Standard 4 brief, in which he raised, for the first time, the issues identified as habeas issues III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI. (Id., PageID.770-773.) Thereafter, by unpublished opinion issued July 26, 2016, the court of appeals denied relief, affirming the trial court with respect to all issues Petitioner raised. (Id., PageID.702.)
Petitioner then filed a pro per application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court raising the same issues he had raised in the court of appeals. (ECF No. 16-11, PageID.916-965.) By order entered June 27, 2017, the supreme court denied leave to appeal because the court was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed.” (Id., PageID.915.)
Petitioner did not file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Instead, he timely filed his habeas petition.
The AEDPA “prevent[s] federal habeas ‘retrials'” and ensures that state court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under the law. Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 693-94 (2002). An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a state conviction cannot be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication: “(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 upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “Under these rules, [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.” Stermer v. Warren, 959 F.3d 704, 721 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). This standard is “intentionally difficult to meet.” Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015) (internal quotation omitted).
The AEDPA limits the source of law to cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In determining whether federal law is clearly established, the Court may not consider the decisions of lower federal courts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 381-82 (2000); Miller v. Straub, 299 F.3d 570, 578- 79 (6th Cir. 2002). Moreover, “clearly established Federal law” does not include decisions of the Supreme Court announced after the last adjudication of the merits in state court. Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 37-38 (2011). Thus, the inquiry is limited to an examination of the legal landscape as it would have appeared to the Michigan state courts in light of Supreme Court precedent at the time of the state-court adjudication on the merits. Miller v. Stovall, 742 F.3d 642, 644 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Greene, 565 U.S. at 38).
A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the “contrary to” clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in the Supreme Court's cases, or if it decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Bell, 535 U.S. at 694 (citing Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06). “To satisfy this high bar, a habeas petitioner is required to ‘show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'” Woods, 575 U.S. at 316 (quoting Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial