Moore v. Berghuis
| Decision Date | 27 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 10-cv-12338 |
| Parties | THOMAS E. MOORE, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
THOMAS E. MOORE, Petitioner,
v.
MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.
CASE NO. 10-cv-12338
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dated: December 27, 2012
This matter is pending before the Court on petitioner Thomas E. Moore's habeas corpus petition, which challenges a state conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. See MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520b(1)(a) (sexual penetration of a person under the age of thirteen). Petitioner raises claims regarding his right to present a defense, the trial court's evidentiary rulings, the prosecutor, his attorneys, the trial judge, and the weight of the evidence adduced at trial. Respondent Mary Berghuis argues in an answer to the petition that several of Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted and barred from substantive review and that Petitioner's remaining claims lack merit. The Court agrees. Consequently, the habeas petition must be denied.
Petitioner was charged in Oakland County, Michigan with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The charge arose from a nine-year-old girl's allegation that Petitioner touched her genital area with his mouth and tongue after an outing at a lake on July 13, 2005. Petitioner was
Page 2
tried before a jury in Oakland County Circuit Court where the complainant ("A.T.")1 testified that,
[w]hile babysitting [her] in July 2005, defendant took her to the beach. She testified that thereafter, while in defendant's truck, he pulled her bathing suit bottoms down and "started French kissing [her] private" with his mouth and tongue. Defendant stopped when AT began to cry and told her that if she told anyone about what he had done, he would go to jail and would no longer be able to see his daughter.
People v. Moore, No. 273238, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2007).
A.T. disclosed the incident to her mother, to Oakland County Deputy Sheriff Georgia Willyard, and to medical personnel that same day. The police did not send A.T. to a child advocacy center for a forensic interview because they thought that Deputy Willyard had done a thorough job of interviewing A.T. and that another interview was unnecessary. The physician who examined A.T. testified that A.T. had some redness in her genital area and that A.T. complained of some pain when the physician took swabs of her vaginal and labial areas.
The attorney who initially represented Petitioner testified that, on July 14, 2005, he met with Petitioner and Petitioner's mother, who placed a grocery bag with a small bathing suit inside it on his desk. On or about July 26, 2005, he contacted the prosecutor, and on or about August 2, 2005, he gave the bathing suit to a detective who came to his office. The parties stipulated that a serological analysis of items submitted to the state police did not reveal the presence of saliva, hair, or anything else of evidentiary value.
Petitioner did not testify, but he presented several witnesses, including the examining physician who testified that there could be several causes for the redness she observed on A.T.'s genital area. A forensic scientist established that there was no physical evidence linking Petitioner to the crime, and a clinical psychologist testified about proper forensic interviewing protocol,
Page 3
suggestibility, and reasons why a person might fabricate an allegation. Other witnesses testified that they did not observe Petitioner acting inappropriately toward A. T. on the day of the crime and that Petitioner had never shown an interest in young girls.
The trial court instructed the jury on first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, but declined to instruct the jury on assault and battery as a lesser-included offense. On June 30, 2006, the jury found Petitioner guilty, as charged, of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The trial court sentenced Petitioner as a habitual offender to imprisonment for twenty-five to fifty years.
In an appeal of right, Petitioner argued through counsel that (1) the trial court deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense by refusing to admit certain evidence, (2) the trial court denied him a fair trial by permitting the prosecution to elicit hearsay testimony regarding a prior act of child molestation by Petitioner, and (3) the cumulative effect of the trial errors deprived him of a fair trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals found no merit in these claims and affirmed Petitioner's conviction in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. See id. On May 27, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded to review the issues. See People v. Moore, 748 N.W.2d 834 (Mich. 2008) (table).
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment in which he claimed that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, the trial court was biased, and the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The trial court concluded that Petitioner had failed to satisfy the "good cause" and "actual prejudice" prongs of Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)(3). Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the trial court's decision because Petitioner had failed to establish entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). See People v. Moore, No. 292271 (Mich. Ct. App.
Page 4
Sept. 1, 2009); People v. Moore, 780 N.W.2d 822 (Mich. 2010) (table).
On June 14, 2010, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His grounds for relief, as set forth and numbered in his habeas petition,2 are: (1) the trial court deprived him of his right to present a defense by refusing to admit certain evidence; (2) the trial court denied him a fair trial by allowing the prosecution to elicit hearsay testimony about a prior act of child molestation; (3) the cumulative effective of errors deprived him of a fair trial; (4) appellate counsel was ineffective; (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (6) trial counsel was ineffective; (7) the trial judge was biased; (8) the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence; and (9) he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
"The statutory authority of federal courts to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)." Harrington v. Richter, __ U.S. _, _, 131 S. Ct. 770, 783 (2011). Pursuant to § 2254, state prisoners are not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus unless the state court's adjudication of their claims on the merits
(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.
Page 5
Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ 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. Under the "unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000).
"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. at 786 (citing 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 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 786-87.
The Court will begin its discussion by analyzing the three claims that Petitioner raised on direct review of his conviction. The Michigan Court of Appeals adjudicated most of these claims on the merits3 and rejected them.
Page 6
A. The Right to Present a Defense
Petitioner alleges that the trial court deprived him of his right to present a defense by refusing to admit certain evidence. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected all of Petitioner's arguments regarding his right to present a defense.
...To continue reading
Request your trial