Miller v. Rivard
Decision Date | 31 May 2018 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:15-cv-12056 |
Parties | DANA MAURICE MILLER, Petitioner, v. STEVE RIVARD, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
Petitioner Dana Maurice Miller filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions for first-degree (premeditated) murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316(1)(a), felon in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony ("felony firearm"), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. Petitioner alleges as grounds for relief that: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his murder conviction; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony about Petitioner's prior "bad acts;" (3) the prosecutor denied him a fair trial by questioning him about being arrested in front of a "dope" house and neglecting to visit his mother; (4) the prosecutor denied him a fair trial by introducing evidence that a prosecution witness did not have a criminal record; (5) the trial court erred by rejecting his defense and penalizing him for exercising his right to testify; (6) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call the medical examiner as a witness; (7) defense counsel was ineffective for arguing an invalid defense; (8) the trial court violated his right of confrontation; (9) the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the murder; and (10) the prosecutor and defense counsel denied him the right to present a defense by not producing the medical examiner as a witness.
The State argues in an answer to the habeas petition that Petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies for part of his seventh claim, that Petitioner procedurally defaulted claims three and four, that some of Petitioner's claims are not cognizable on habeas review, and that the state court reasonably adjudicated Petitioner's claims. Because the Court agrees that none of Petitioner's claims warrant habeas relief, the Court will deny the petition.
Petitioner was charged with premeditated murder and two firearm offenses in Wayne County, Michigan. He was tried before a circuit court judge in Wayne County Circuit Court. The state appellate court summarized the facts at Petitioner's bench trial as follows:
People v. Miller, No. 314659, 2014 WL 2753719, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. June 17, 2014).
On January 8, 2013, the trial court found Petitioner guilty, as charged, of first-degree (premeditated) murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. The court sentenced Petitioner to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, two to five years in prison for the felon-in-possession conviction, and two years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction. The court ordered the sentences for murder and felon-in-possession to run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to the felony-firearm sentence. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions in an unpublished decision, see id., and on November 25, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal becauseit was not persuaded to review the issues. See People v. Miller, 497 Mich. 905; 856 N.W.2d 21 (2014). On June 5, 2015, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (2).
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 (2000). "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n. 7 (1997), and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt,' Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)." Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010).
"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." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). To obtain a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on his or her claim "was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Id. at 103.
Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Affidavit of Kilak Kesha, M.D., Assistant Medical Examiner (Docket No. 1, Page ID 47).
The Michigan Court of Appeals determined on review of Petitioner's claim that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner intentionally shot and killed the victim. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove first-degree murder.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 (1979) (internal citations and footnote omitted) (emphases in original).
The Supreme Court has "made clear that Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference." Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 651 (2012) (per curiam). First, it is the responsibility of the jury to decide what conclusions should be drawn from the evidence admitted at trial. Id. (quoting Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 2 (2011) (per curiam)). Id. (quoting Cavazos, 565 U.S. at 2); see also Tanner v. Yukins, 867 F.3d 661, 672 (6th Cir. 2017) (, )cert. denied, No. 17-729, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2018 WL1369141 (U.S. 2018).
The Jackson standard "must be applied with explicit reference to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial