Mix v. MacClaren
| Decision Date | 29 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 16-cv-10909 |
| Parties | DANIEL RAY MIX, Petitioner, v. DUNCAN MacCLAREN, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Petitioner Daniel Ray Mix, a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges Petitioner's state convictions for: three counts of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) in the first degree, Mich Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(a) (); two counts of CSC in the second degree, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(a) (); and one count of assault with intent to commit CSC involving sexual penetration, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520g(1). He raises multiple issues about the pretrial proceedings, the state trial court, his former attorneys, and his sentence.
Respondent Duncan MacLaren filed a responsive pleading in which he addresses the six claims that Petitioner raised in his initial petition. He concedes that Petitioner has exhausted state remedies for those claims, that the statute of limitations does not bar review of the claims, and that the non-retroactivity doctrine does not apply. However, he contends that Petitioner procedurally defaulted his fifth and sixth claims, and he asks the Court to deny the petition. See Answer Opposing Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 16, PageID.355-359). Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent's answer, see Petitioner's Objections to Respondent's Answer to Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No 18), and supplemental documents (ECF Nos. 19-22).
The Court construes the amended habeas petition as raising more claims than what Respondent has addressed. The Court nevertheless, agrees with Respondent that Petitioner is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the Court will deny the amended petition and dismiss the case.
The charges against Petitioner arose from allegations that Petitioner sexually penetrated the complainant (“SJ”) or touched her in a sexual manner, beginning in 2006, when SJ was six years old, and continuing until May 2011, when she first disclosed the abuse to a friend. During those years, Petitioner was living with SJ, her mother, and her younger sister.
SJ was twelve years old in January 2013 when she testified at Petitioner's trial in Jackson County Circuit Court. She described Petitioner's vaginal and anal penetration of her and sexual contact with her private parts at times when her mother was not around or was sleeping. Petitioner would tell her that was their little secret. After she disclosed the abuse to someone at school, Petitioner asked whether she had said anything, and he told her that if she had said something, he would spank her. She lied and told him that she did not say anything, because she had seen him spank her little sister and make her sister cry. Shortly after her birth father died, her mother wanted to take her to counseling, but Petitioner did not want her to go. Afterward, she thought that his reluctance to have her go to counseling was because he feared that she would tell the counselor what he had been doing to her. She thought that Petitioner did something inappropriate to her about once a month. Petitioner's adult half-sisters, “HM” and “ST, ” People v. Mix, No. 315355, 2014 WL 3512960, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. July 15, 2014). There was additional testimony from SJ's mother, a former Child Protective Service worker who interviewed SJ after she disclosed the abuse to her friend, the police officer who subsequently interviewed Petitioner, the pediatrician who examined SJ after the disclosure, and an expert witness in child sexual abuse dynamics and disclosure.
Petitioner did not testify or present any defense witnesses. His defense was that he did not commit the crimes, that the allegations arose from a story that the complainant told her friend, that he was being tried on allegations that HM and ST made about him years earlier, [1] and that the prosecutor had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
On January 31, 2013, the jury found Petitioner guilty, as charged, of three counts of first-degree CSC, two counts of second-degree CSC, and one count of assault with intent to commit sexual penetration. On March 14, 2013, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of 29½ to 50 years in prison for the first-degree CSC convictions, 14 to 22½ years in prison for the second-degree CSC convictions, and 10 to 15 years in prison for the assault conviction.
Petitioner appealed his convictions through counsel on grounds that: (1) his trial attorney provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to (a) challenge the testimony of HM and ST, (b) challenge the expert witness's testimony, (c) object to the use of a support person for the complainant, (d) object to the use of a witness screen for the complainant, and (e) engage in meaningful cross-examination of the complainant; (2) the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights to a face-to-face confrontation and to the presumption of innocence by permitting the complainant to testify behind a two-way screen, aided by a support person; and (3) the trial court violated his right to due process by incorrectly scoring offense variables 3, 10, and 19 of the Michigan sentencing guidelines. See Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal (ECF No. 17-15, PageID.1068-1070).
In a pro se supplemental brief, Petitioner argued that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to (a) challenge certain jurors for cause, (b) object to the trial court's closure of the courtroom, and (c) produce key defense witnesses at trial. See Defendant's Standard 4 Brief (ECF No. 17-15, PageID.1208-1209). The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected all of Petitioner's claims and affirmed his convictions and sentences in an unpublished, per curiam decision. See Mix, 2014 WL 3512960.
Petitioner raised the first three claims that he presented to the Michigan Court of Appeals in a pro se application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. See Pro Per Application for Leave to Appeal (ECF No. 17-16, PageID.1258-1298). In a motion to amend, Petitioner raised the fourth claim that he presented to the Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 17-16, PageID.1300-1314).
In a second motion to amend, Petitioner raised two new claims, which alleged that his convictions and sentences were based on fraud and deception, and his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court remanded his case to the state district court for further testimony. See Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 17-16, PageID.1529-1539). On March 31, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the motions to amend, but denied leave to appeal because the court was not persuaded to review the questions presented to it. See People v. Mix, 497 Mich. 982; 861 N.W.2d 28 (2015).
In 2016, Petitioner filed his initial habeas corpus petition, raising the six claims that he had presented to the Michigan Supreme Court on direct review. See Pet. (ECF No. 1, PageID.1-24). During the Court's preliminary review of the petition, the Court determined from allegations in the petition that Petitioner had not exhausted state remedies for his fifth and sixth habeas claims. Accordingly, on March 25, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his habeas petition should not be dismissed. See Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 4).
Petitioner initially asked the Court to dismiss his case without prejudice, see Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 7), but he subsequently asked the Court to hold his case in abeyance while he pursued post-conviction remedies in state court. See Mot. to Hold Habeas Pet. in Abeyance (ECF No. 8). On July 11, 2016, the Court denied Petitioner's motion to dismiss, granted the motion for a stay, and closed this case for administrative purposes. See Order Denying Petitioner's Mot. to Dismiss, Granting Petitioner's Mot. to Hold the Habeas Pet. in Abeyance, and Closing Case (ECF No. 9, PageID.303-304).
Meanwhile, in mid-June 2016, Petitioner filed in the state trial court a notice of intent to file a motion for relief from judgment. The notice sought discovery, appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and a stay of actual briefing. The notice also set forth nine claims that Petitioner intended to raise in a motion for relief from judgment. See Notice of Intent to File Mot. for Relief from J. (ECF No. 17-17).
A few months later, on or about September 23, 2016, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment.” (ECF No. 17-19.) The motion repeated Petitioner's requests for discovery, appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing, and a stay of the briefing schedule. See Id. at PageID.1589. The motion and attached brief added a tenth claim to Petitioner's list of grounds for relief, and Petitioner stated that, following discovery, he would file an amended motion for relief from judgment. See Id. at PageID.1592, 1609.
On October 5, 2016, the trial court denied Petitioner's requests for appointment of counsel, for an evidentiary hearing, and for documents and records. The court did not address the ten claims that Petitioner raised as grounds for...
To continue reading
Request your trial