Mckinney v. Ludwick

• Decision Date: 19 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–1669.,10–1669.
• Citation: 649 F.3d 484
• Parties: David Dennard McKINNEY, Petitioner–Appellant,v.Nick LUDWICK, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

649 F.3d 484

David Dennard McKINNEY, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.Nick LUDWICK, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 10–1669.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: July 22, 2011.Decided and Filed: Aug. 19, 2011.

ARGUED: Raymond G. Mullins, Ypsilanti, Michigan, for Appellant. Jon P. Wojtala, Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Raymond G. Mullins, Ypsilanti, Michigan, for Appellant. Jon P. Wojtala, Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.Before: KENNEDY, SILER, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner David Dennard McKinney is a Michigan prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment on a felony-murder conviction stemming from his participation in the robbery and arson of a gun shop. He now petitions for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the admission at trial of incriminating statements he gave to police violates the rights established by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). We AFFIRM the district court's denial of habeas relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¹

On August 3, 2004, emergency personnel responded to a fire at Alexander's Gun Shop in Inkster, Michigan. Several hours passed before firefighters were able to suppress the fire, which caused large quantities of ammunition kept in the store to explode and the roof to collapse. Once the police were able to access what remained of the building, they discovered the body of Clyde Alexander, one of the store's owners, with tie-cuffs attached to one of his wrists. An autopsy confirmed that he had died from smoke inhalation and extensive burns, but it also indicated that he had been beaten before his death and was possibly unconscious when the fire started. Additionally, investigators determined that approximately ninety guns were missing from the store and accelerants had been used to set the fire. The Inkster Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) ² began a joint investigation into the death of Alexander and the suspected robbery and arson of the gun shop.

Law enforcement officers received information implicating McKinney in the fire as early as August 17, 2004, at which time he submitted to a polygraph examination when briefly in police custody on other charges. At this time, McKinney retained counsel. On November 20, 2004, McKinney was again arrested on unrelated charges, and Detective Anthony Delgreco used the opportunity to interrogate McKinney about his possible involvement in the Alexander's case. Delgreco read McKinney his rights under Miranda, obtained his written waiver of those rights, and confronted him with the evidence against him. Though McKinney initially denied any participation in or knowledge of the crimes, he eventually said “I planned it.” Immediately thereafter, McKinney asked for his lawyer and Delgreco stopped the interrogation. While escorting McKinney back to his cell, Delgreco informed him that the Alexander's case might be prosecuted by the federal government and, in that event, McKinney could face the death penalty for his role in the crimes.

Around 7:15AM the following morning, November 21, 2004, Delgreco entered McKinney's cellblock to perform a routine head count of the prisoners. McKinney called out to Delgreco and said, according to Delgreco, that “he wanted to talk to me and the ATF agent to see what the Feds had against him and how the case was going to proceed.” Delgreco reminded McKinney that they could not speak due to McKinney's prior request for his attorney, but McKinney persisted and agreed to talk without his lawyer. In the presence of Delgreco and ATF Agent Ray Tomaszewski, McKinney signed a letter stating “I, David Dennard McKinney, saw Detective Delgreco in the cell block and asked Detective Delgreco if I could hear what the ATF agent had to say about the case. Detective Delgreco contacted the ATF agent and then read me my Miranda rights.” Delgreco also re-read McKinney the Miranda warnings and McKinney signed another waiver. McKinney then gave a written statement and affidavit admitting that he had both planned the robbery and served as a lookout during it. However, he insisted that starting the fire and killing Alexander had not been part of his plan and, in fact, he had not learned of these events until he later saw them on the news.

On August 24, 2005, a jury in Wayne County Circuit Court found McKinney guilty of felony murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316(1)(b), and accessory after the fact to arson, id. § 750.505, for his role in the robbery, fire, and homicide at Alexander's Gun Shop. The only evidence presented at trial to link McKinney to those crimes was his written confessions of November 21, 2004. On September 7, 2005, the circuit court sentenced him to a mandatory term of life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and a concurrent term of two-to-five years on the accessory conviction.

Before trial, the circuit court had denied McKinney's motion to suppress his November 21, 2004 statements as products of an unlawful interrogation. McKinney renewed this objection in a post-judgment motion for a new trial, and the circuit court declined to overturn its previous ruling. On McKinney's direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court had not erred by allowing McKinney's statements into evidence. People v. McKinney, No. 269823, 2007 WL 2807961 (Mich.Ct.App. Sept. 27, 2007). The Michigan Supreme Court denied McKinney leave to appeal. People v. McKinney, 481 Mich. 925, 750 N.W.2d 590 (2008).

On November 18, 2008, McKinney filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, again arguing that admission of his November 21, 2004 statements at trial violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied his petition, holding that the state court had not unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that McKinney's Fifth Amendment rights had not been violated. McKinney v. Ludwick, No. 08–14834, 2010 WL 1753106 (E.D.Mich. Apr. 29, 2010). The district court issued a certificate of appealability, and McKinney timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In a habeas case, this court reviews the district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual determinations for clear error. Lovell v. Duffey, 629 F.3d 587, 593–94 (6th Cir.2011), petition for cert. filed, No. 10–10543 (May 16, 2011). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”):

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). AEDPA thus imposes a “ ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,’ which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.”

Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (citation omitted) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997)).

A state-court decision is “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts,” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A state-court decision is “an unreasonable application of[ ] clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), if it “correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case,” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407–08, 120 S.Ct. 1495. That is, “a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly,” id. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495; rather, that application must be “objectively unreasonable,” id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “ ‘[C]learly established Federal law’ under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71–72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). “However, the court may look to lower courts of appeals' decisions to the extent they illuminate the analysis of Supreme Court holdings in determining whether a legal principle had been clearly established by the Supreme Court.” Goodwin v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 301, 308 (6th Cir.2011).

The habeas petitioner has the burden of rebutting, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption that the state court's factual findings are correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Under § 2254(d)(2), “a decision adjudicated on the merits in a state court and based on a factual determination will not be overturned on factual grounds unless objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceeding.” Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003).

ANALYSIS

On appeal, McKinney challenges the district court's ruling that he is not entitled to habeas relief based on his claim that the ...