McKinney v. Hoffner, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-15284
Decision Date | 17 March 2015 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:13-CV-15284 |
Parties | JAMES MCKINNEY, Petitioner, v. BONITA HOFFNER, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION AND ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
James McKinney, ("Petitioner"), presently confined at the Lakeland Correctional Facility in Coldwater, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 In his application, filed by attorney Valerie R. Newman of the State Appellate Defender's Office, petitioner challenges his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, M.C.L.A. 750.316(a); unlawfully driving away an automobile, M.C.L.A. 750.413; and felony firearm, M.C.L.A. 750.227b. For the reasons stated below, the application for writ of habeas corpus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.
On October 23, 2009, petitioner was arrested by the police in DeKalb County, Illinois during a traffic stop. Police searched the van that petitioner was driving and recovered two handguns, a magazine cartridge and a wallet belonging to the murder victim, James Harper. Petitioner was driving the victim's van when stopped. Petitioner had lived with the victim for a period of time. Petitioner had lived with the victim, performing chores for the victim in lieu of paying rent. The two men sometimes quarreled over the way in which petitioner did some of the jobs. There was no evidence, however, of any bad blood between the two men. Petitioner kept several guns in the basement of the victim's house, where he lived. One of the firearms that was recovered from the van had been used to kill the victim. (Tr. I, pp. 100-01, 105-09, 113-15, 143, 178, 180, 182, 203, 213, Tr. II, pp. 235-38, 41). Two detectives from the Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department came to Illinois and questioned petitioner about the victim, who was found dead from a gunshot to the head on October 24, 2009, the morning after the traffic stop. (Tr. I, p. 174).
Prior to questioning petitioner, Detective Hodshire of the Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department gave petitioner a form which advised him of his Miranda rights. Petitioner signed the form and Detective Hodshire began questioning him. (Id., p. 141). During the interrogation, petitioner requested an attorney and in response, Detective Hodshire turned his questions towards the circumstancessurrounding the victim's death. It was during this period of questioning that petitioner confessed to shooting the victim, but gave few details about a possible motive for the shooting. (Id., pp. 92-96).
Prior to trial, petitioner's counsel moved to suppress petitioner's confession on the ground that it had been obtained after petitioner had invoked his right to counsel. Defense counsel argued that petitioner unequivocally requested counsel during the following exchange that took place during the interrogation:
The Hillsdale County Circuit Court granted the motion to suppress, finding that petitioner's confession was obtained in violation of Miranda because Detective Hodshire continued to interrogate petitioner after he invoked his right to counsel.4 (See Petitioner's Appendix A, Excerpt Transcript at 9-11; and Appendix B, Interrogation Transcript at 41-42.).
The Jackson County Prosecutor filed an interlocutory appeal. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's suppression ruling. The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner's statement, "I just as soon wait until I get a public defender," was an unequivocal assertion of his right to counsel. People v. McKinney, No. 296455, 2010 WL 4226761, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2010). Because petitioner had asserted his right to counsel unequivocally, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that "it was incumbent upon the officer at this point to cease all questioning unless defendant subsequently was provided with counsel or until he 'reinitiate[d] conversation.'" Id. (internal quotation omitted). The Michigan Court of Appeals further concluded that Detective Hodshire's remarks following petitioner's invocation of his request for counsel amounted to impermissible continued interrogation:
Id. (Internal citations omitted).
The prosecutor filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court peremptorily reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals:
The defendant's statement that he would "just as soon wait" until he had an attorney before talking to the police, followed immediately by his statement that he was willing to discuss the "circumstances," was not an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel or a statement declaring an intention to remain silent.
People v. McKinney, 488 Mich. 1054, 794 N.W.2d 614, 615 (2011).
Justice Kelly indicated that she would have granted leave to appeal. Id.
Petitioner's confession was admitted at trial. In light of the confession,defense counsel did not dispute that petitioner killed the victim and took his van. Instead, counsel argued that petitioner's actions did not amount to premeditated murder.
Appellate counsel appealed as of right to the Michigan Court of Appeals, again challenging the admissibility of petitioner's statement. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction on the ground that it was bound by the prior ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court from the prosecutor's interlocutory appeal. People v. McKinney, 305093, 2012 WL 4039706 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2012); lv. den. 493 Mich. 940, 826 N.W.2d 729 (2013).
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes the following standard of review for habeas cases:
A decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal 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 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial