Miller v. Winn

• Decision Date: 29 March 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-14551
• Parties: ERIC MILLER, Petitioner, v. THOMAS WINN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

ERIC MILLER, Petitioner, v. THOMAS WINN, Respondent.

Case No. 14-14551

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 29, 2018

Hon. Terrence G. Berg

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Eric Anthony Miller ("Petitioner") was convicted of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520b(1)(c), first-degree home invasion, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.110a(2), unlawful imprisonment, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.349b, and aggravated stalking, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.411i, following a jury trial in the Lapeer County Circuit Court. He was sentenced in 2010 to concurrent terms of 1) 18 years, 9 months to 40 years imprisonment on the criminal sexual conduct convictions; 2) 7 years, 11 months to 20 years imprisonment on the home invasion conviction; 3) 7 years, 2 months to 15 years imprisonment on the unlawful imprisonment conviction; and 4) 2 to 5 years imprisonment on the stalking conviction.

In his pro se petition, Petitioner raises claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, the denial of a directed verdict motion, the denial of a resentencing motion, the scoring of the sentencing guidelines, the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, the conduct of the prosecutor, the jury instructions, the failure to produce a witness, and the failure of the trial judge to recuse himself. For the reasons set forth, the Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

II. Background

Petitioner's convictions arise from stalking and sexually assaulting his former girlfriend at her home in Lapeer County, Michigan in 2009. The Michigan Court of Appeals described the relevant facts as follows¹:

The complaining witness testified that she and defendant had had an intimate relationship, but that when she wished to end it, defendant contacted her with such persistence, both in person and by electronic means, that she came to feel harassed and threatened.

The complainant further testified that, on the night of November 2-3, 2009, when she was in her bedroom and in the early stages of sleep, defendant appeared, undressed and brandishing a knife. According to the complainant, defendant threatened her with the knife, forcibly penetrated her vagina with his penis, and then forcibly penetrated her anus with his penis. The complainant continued that defendant admonished her that they were going to get back together, that she was going to tell that to her friends and family, and that she was otherwise going to abide by his terms and conditions. Then, according to the complainant, in response to some impatience, defendant forcibly inserted a sexual aid into her vagina, and left it there for at least ten minutes while he continued his threats and demands. Before leaving, defendant told the complainant not to speak of the assault to anyone, and spoke of consequences should she fail to accede to that and his other terms and conditions.

The complainant testified that in the days immediately following, defendant was constantly initiating communications, by phone and text messaging, and repeatedly insisting that she see him, and threatening her with consequences if she crossed him.

People v. Miller, No. 300209, 2012 WL 2362478, *1 (Mich. Ct. App. June 21, 2012)(unpublished).

After he was sentenced, Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals. In that appeal Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, the scoring of the sentencing guidelines, the effectiveness of trial counsel, the prosecutor's charging decision, the jury instructions, the failure to produce a witness, and the failure of the trial court to recuse itself. The court denied relief on those claims and affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences. Id. at *2-13. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v. Miller, 493 Mich. 917, 823 N.W.2d 602 (2012).

Petitioner then filed a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court raising claims about the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel and the prosecutor's conduct. The trial court denied his motion finding that the claims lacked merit and that Petitioner failed to establish cause and prejudice under Michigan Court Rule6.508(D). People v. Miller, No. 09-010234-FC(MH) (Lapeer Co. Cir. Ct. July 13, 2013). Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave to appeal challenging the trial court's procedural ruling, which was also denied for lack of merit. People v. Miller, No. 317613 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2013). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). People v. Miller, 495 Mich. 978, 843 N.W.2d 763 (2014).

Petitioner then filed this federal habeas petition in which he raises the following claims:

I. Due Process Violation - Insufficient Evidence to Convict

II. Due Process Violation - Improper Trial Court Rulings

III. Due Process Sentencing Violation - Incorrect Statutory Sentencing Guidelines Calculation

IV. Sixth Amendment Violation - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

V. Due Process Violation - Prosecutorial Misconduct

VI. Due Process Violation - Incorrect Jury InstructionVII. Confrontation - Failure to Produce Witness

VIII. Due Process Violation - Failure of Trial Judge to Recuse Himself

IX. Due Process Violation - Insufficient Evidence to Convict

X. Sixth Amendment Violation - Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

XI. Sixth Amendment and Due Process Violations - Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

Respondent has filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied. Petitioner has filed a reply to that answer.

III. Standard of Review

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., sets forth the standard of review for federal courts considering habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging their state court convictions. The relevant provision states:

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) (1996).

"A state court's decision is 'contrary to' . . . clearly established law if it 'applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court cases]' or if it 'confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [that] precedent.'" Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). A federal habeas court may therefore grant the writ under § 2254(d)(1) if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle from Supreme Court precedent, but "unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of petitioner's case." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413); see alsoBell, 535 U.S. at 694. The state court's application, however, must have been 'objectively unreasonable,' and more than just incorrect or erroneous. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (citations omitted); see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 409.

Section 2254(d)(1) also limits a federal court's review to whether the state court's decision comports with clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court at the time the state court rendered its decision. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412; see also Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 122 (2009). Federal circuit or district court cases do not constitute clearly established Supreme Court law and cannot provide the basis for federal habeas relief. See Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2148, 2155 (2012) (per curiam); see also Lopez v. Smith, ___ U.S. ___ 135 S. Ct. 1, 2 (2014) (per curiam). But lower federal courts may be useful in assessing the reasonableness of a state court's decision. Stewart v. Erwin, 503 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Williams v. Bowersox, 340 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 2003)); Dickens v. Jones, 203 F. Supp. 2d 354, 359 (E.D. Mich. 2002). The state court decision need not cite the Supreme Court cases or reflect any awareness of those cases creating this clearly established law, "so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them." Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002); see also Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 16.

Finally, federal habeas review is "limited to the record that was before the state court." Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). And the state court's factual determinations are presumed correct on federal habeas review, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); though a petitioner may rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence.

The result is a "highly deferential standard" for federal habeas court reviewing state court rulings. Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (quoting Lindh, 521 U.S. at 333, n. 7; Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)).

IV. Analysis

a. Sufficiency of the Evidence, Directed Verdict ...