Miller v. Straub

• Decision Date: 08 August 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-2150.,No. 00-2163.,00-2150.,00-2163.
• Citation: Miller v. Straub, 299 F.3d 570 (6th Cir. 2002)
• Parties: Cortez MILLER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Dennis M. STRAUB, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. Kermit Eldridge Haynes, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Luella Burke, Warden, Saginaw Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

299 F.3d 570

Cortez MILLER, Petitioner-Appellee, v.Dennis M. STRAUB, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.

Kermit Eldridge Haynes, Petitioner-Appellee, v.Luella Burke, Warden, Saginaw Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 00-2150.

No. 00-2163.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 26, 2001.

Decided and Filed: August 8, 2002.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied: October 2, 2002.^*

John R. Minock(argued and briefed), Cramer Minock, Ann Arbor, MI, for Petitioner-Appellee in 00-2150.

Susan M. Meinberg(briefed), Marla R. McCowan(argued and briefed), State Appellate Defender Office, Detroit, MI, for Petitioner-Appellee in No. 00-2163.

Thomas M. Chambers(argued and briefed), Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, County of Wayne, Detroit, MI, Vincent J. Leone, Asst. Attorney Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Habeas Corpus Division, Lansing, MI, for Respondents-Appellants in Nos. 00-2150, 00-2163.

Before BOGGS, GILMAN, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.^**

BRIGHT, J., delivered the opinion of the court.GILMAN, J.(pp. 583-585), delivered a separate concurring opinion.BOGGS, J.(pp. 585-588), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

The wardens of two Michigan state correctional institutions appeal a federal district court's conditional grant of habeas corpus to prisoners Cortez Miller and Kermit Haynes on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.Haynes and Miller are currently serving life sentences without parole after pleading guilty to first degree murder.

In 1990, Miller and Haynes were fifteen and sixteen years old, respectively.Each, on the advice of his own defense counsel, pled guilty in Michigan state court to first degree murder.Their attorneys believed it likely that the trial court would impose juvenile sentences.The trial court did sentence them as juveniles.In each case, the prosecution appealed and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed.Miller and Haynes each then received the only available adult sentence under Michigan law: life in prison without possibility of parole.Neither Miller's nor Haynes' trial counsel considered or advised their respective clients that the prosecutor could appeal the imposition of a juvenile sentence.

Miller and Haynes petitioned for writs of habeas corpus, and the federal district court¹ concluded that the failure of their defense attorneys to inform them of the prosecutor's right to appeal, particularly in light of their youth at the time of the pleas, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.The court further concluded that a contrary determination on the facts and the law by the Michigan Court of Appeals constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Taylor,529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389(2000);Hill v. Lockhart,474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203(1985);andStrickland v. Washington,466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984).Accordingly, the court separately granted Miller's and Haynes' petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.²The wardens appeal.After a careful review of the records in the two cases, weAFFIRMthe district court.

I.BACKGROUND

Kermit Haynes and Cortez Miller are two of six youths³ charged by the state of Michigan with the 1990 murder of Benjamin Gravel.The state charged Haynes and Miller each with first degree felony murder, assault with intent to rob while armed, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony.

A. Miller's Plea

On March 23, 1990, Miller pled guilty before Chief Judge Roberson of the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit.He was fifteen years old at the time.At the plea hearing, the court questioned Miller as to whether he understood that if he pled guilty, his "only hope" to avoid mandatory life imprisonment lay in convincing the court to treat him as a juvenile.Miller answered that he understood.Miller's mother, who was present at the plea hearing, stated that Miller's plea had been discussed with her and that she understood that the judge might sentence her son as a juvenile or as an adult.⁴The prosecutor advised the court that his office would request that the court sentence Miller as an adult.

The court then questioned Miller.Miller affirmed that he was making his plea freely, understandingly, and voluntarily.He acknowledged an understanding of the various trial rights he was foregoing by pleading guilty.Miller affirmed his understanding that first degree murder was punishable by a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without parole.The court described the situation to Miller: "the only hope that you [have] in this plea is if I decide to treat you as a juvenile for the purpose of disposition.You heard [the prosecutor] say that they are going to want to hold a lengthy disposition hearing, do you understand that?"Miller stated that he understood, and specifically acknowledged that he was "taking that chance."

The court then questioned Miller briefly as to the factual basis for his plea.Miller stated that he was part of a group that decided to steal a car.Sometime before the crime he gave Haynes a gun knowing that Haynes planned to use it to steal a car.Miller acknowledged knowing the inherent danger to life when a car is taken at gunpoint.

Over the course of the next year, Chief Judge Roberson held several hearings on the disposition of Miller's sentence.On February 22, 1991, Miller's counsel made closing arguments to the court at the final hearing in Miller's case.At that hearing, the prosecutor announced that if the court sentenced Miller as a juvenile the prosecution would appeal.⁵On June 17, 1991, the court sentenced Miller to confinement in a juvenile institution until age twenty-one.

B. Haynes' Plea

On March 27, 1990, Haynes pled guilty to all charges against him, also before Chief Judge Roberson.He was sixteen years old at the time.At the plea hearing, his counsel, Wilfred Rice, stated that he had discussed the matter with Haynes and his family and that Haynes, with the acquiescence of his father, wanted to enter a plea of guilty as charged.Rice stated that Haynes understood that the court could sentence him as an adult or as a juvenile, and affirmed that Haynes understood that the prosecutor would attempt to convince Chief Judge Roberson that Haynes should be sentenced as an adult.

The court questioned Haynes directly about whether he understood that, if he pled guilty, "the only option you have in this case, the only escape you have in terms of mandatory life, [is] if the prosecution can't convince me to treat you as an adult."Haynes stated that he understood.

Haynes stated that he had talked to his parents about his guilty plea.He affirmed that he was not being coerced into his plea and that he made his plea freely, understandingly, and voluntarily.He also affirmed an awareness of the various trial rights he was foregoing by pleading guilty.

The court then questioned Haynes briefly about the factual basis for his plea.Haynes stated that other boys in the group pulled a tree branch into the street to force cars to stop.When the victim, Gravel, stopped his car in front of the tree branch, Haynes ran out to the car intending to steal it.He was carrying a handgun Miller had given him.As Haynes approached the car, it pulled away and he fired at the car.Haynes specifically admitted that he shot at the car as part of his attempt to steal it.

Over the course of the next year, Chief Judge Roberson held several hearings on the disposition of Haynes' sentence.On August 28, 1991, the court sentenced Haynes to confinement in a juvenile institution until age twenty-one.

C. Post-plea Events

After Chief Judge Roberson ordered that Miller and Haynes be sentenced as juveniles, the prosecutor appealed each sentence.⁶The state court of appeals reversed on each defendant and remanded for imposition of the adult sentence: mandatory life imprisonment without parole on the first degree murder charge.People v. Miller,199 Mich.App. 609, 503 N.W.2d 89(1993);People v. Haynes,199 Mich.App. 593, 502 N.W.2d 758(1993).The state supreme court denied the defendants' applications for leave to appeal those results.

On remand before Chief Judge Roberson, the defendants moved to withdraw their guilty pleas and for evidentiary hearings on those motions.Haynes and Miller each alleged that their guilty pleas had been involuntary due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel.They asserted, among other things, that their attorneys' failure to inform them that the prosecutor could appeal the imposition of a juvenile sentence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.The court granted the motions for evidentiary hearings.

The prosecutor applied to the state court of appeals for leave to file an interlocutory appeal of the orders granting evidentiary hearings.The Michigan Court of Appeals denied the application.The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the trial court's orders granting the evidentiary hearings and directed that Haynes and Miller be sentenced "forthwith" as adults "without prejudice to subsequent consideration of the motion[s] to withdraw the plea[s] of guilty."People v. Miller,527 N.W.2d 513(Mich.1994);People v. Haynes,447 Mich. 1021, 527 N.W.2d 512-13(1994).

On December 19, 1994, Chief Judge Roberson imposed sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.The court subsequently held separate evidentiary hearings on Miller's and Haynes' motions to withdraw their guilty pleas.

Haynes was the only witness at his evidentiary hearing.⁷Haynes testified that he talked with his counsel, Wilfred Rice, twice in the three weeks before his guilty plea.Each visit lasted less than thirty minutes and each centered on Rice's advice that Haynes plead...