Minor v. Davis, Case No. 08-cv-13122
| Decision Date | 30 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08-cv-13122 |
| Parties | DEMARIO MINOR, Petitioner, v. SUSAN DAVIS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Demario Minor is presently confined at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan. In his pro se application, Minor challenges his convictions for assault with intent to rob while armed, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.89; felon in possession of a firearm, M.C.L. 750.224f; possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, M.C.L. 750.227b; and being a third felony habitual offender, M.C.L. 769.11. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that Minor has failed to establish a right to habeas relief and will deny the petition.
Title 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 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, 405-06 (2000). An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 409. 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 410-11.
The Supreme Court has explained that "a federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our federal system." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'" Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 1862 (2010) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n.7 (1997); Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam). "[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, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The Supreme Court has emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Id. . Thus, a "readiness to attribute error [to a state court] is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and follow the law." Woodford, 537 U.S. at 24. Therefore, in order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner is required to show that the state court's rejection of his claim "was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Harrington, 131 S. Ct. at 786-87. Finally, in reviewing a petitioner's claims, a petitioner is "entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one." Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 619 (1953).
On the morning of August 6, 2004, a red pickup truck pulled up to a beer and winestore in Grand Rapids, Michigan owned by Leon Moody. A young man exited the vehicle and entered the store. The man purchased some candy before leaving the store. The red truck pulled away from the store, although Moody did not see the man who had entered his store get into the truck. Trial Tr. 8/23/05, pp. 121-23, ECF No. 9-4.
A few minutes later, another young man entered the store, pointed a handgun at Moody's head, and ordered Moody to give him his money, threatening to "blow [Moody's] head off." Moody responded, Moody then slapped his assailant's firearm away before pulling out a weapon of his own, a .357 Magnum. The robber fled the store, as Moody fired two shots at him. Id. at 124-25.
Richard Lee and Robert Green were in a parking lot across the street from the store, when they heard one or two gunshots and saw the robber flee from the scene. The men heard the robber state that he had been hit, before observing him run down an alley to a red pickup truck, where he got in, before the truck drove away. Id. at 134-36, 142-143, 148.
Before the police responded to the scene, Green received a call on his cell phone, from "[a] little guy around the corner." Green met with this man, who handed him a handgun wrapped in toilet paper. Green turned this gun over to the police. Id. at 137-38, 144-46, 153-56.
Grand Rapids Police Detective James Jorgensen responded to the robbery call. In the midst of the investigation, Detective Jorgensen received a call that Minor had been admitted to Blodgett Hospital with a gunshot wound. Detective Jorgensen met Minor at the hospital, informed him he was under arrest, and advised him of his Miranda rights. After a brief conversation, Minor informed the detective that he wanted an attorney, at which point the conversation ended. Id. at 164-67.
Grand Rapids Police Officer Curtis Satterthwaite was assigned to guard Minor in the hospital while he recovered from his wounds. Officer Satterthwaite testified that Minor was asleep when Satterthwaite arrived at the hospital. About an hour into Officer Satterthwaite's shift, Minor awoke. Officer Satterthwaite did not interrogate Minor about the robbery, but testified Minor informed Officer Satterthwaite that he had been shot while on Madison Avenue and wondered why he was essentially under arrest and being watched by the police when he was an "innocent bystander on Madison." Officer Satterthwaite replied "no, you were shot on Eastern Avenue." Minor then told Officer Satterthwaite that he had earlier expressed these concerns in the emergency room to an officer from the canine unit, even mentioning the police canine dog by name. This concerned Officer Satterthwaite, who asked Minor how he knew so much about the dog and the officer who was the dog handler. After speaking a bit longer, Officer Satterthwaite told Minor that he was lying about being shot on Madison Avenue and that he had in fact been shot on Eastern Avenue. Minor admitted that he had lied about being shot on Madison Avenue and then stated: "I tried to take the money, but I never had the gun and the money was laying out on the table." Officer Satterthwaite emphasized that he could not interrogate Minor, and tried not to do so, but that Trial Tr. 8/24/05, pp. 254-61, ECF No. 9-5.
Grand Rapids Police Officer Timothy Johnston was also assigned to guard Minor at the hospital. During Officer Johnston's shift, Minor received a telephone call from his girlfriend. Officer Johnston was able to hear Minor's portion of the conversation. While on the phone, Minor became angry and began yelling at his girlfriend. Officer Johnston recalled that Minor After ending the conversation, Minor asked Officer Johnston if he could speak with a sergeant or a detective. Officer Johnston informed Minor that because it was a Sunday afternoon, he would probably have to wait...
To continue reading
Request your trial