Patterson v. Metrish
| Decision Date | 17 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2:08-CV-12041 |
| Parties | MICHAEL PATTERSON, Petitioner, v. LINDA METRISH, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Michael Patterson, ("Petitioner"), confined at the Macomb Correctional Facility, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, Petitioner challenges his Wayne Circuit Court conviction for two counts of second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.317, assault with intent to commit murder, Mich. Comp. Laws 750.83, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Mich. Comp. Laws 750.227b. Petitioner was sentenced to two 50-to-90 year terms for the murder convictions, a concurrent term of 40-to-75 years for the assault conviction, and consecutive 2-year terms for the firearm convictions. For the reasons stated below, the application for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
This Court recites verbatim the relevant facts relied upon by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):
On July 23, 2003, defendant shot Courtney Harris, Tamara Harris, and CareyChristie at the Harris family home. Defendant and Courtney Harris had a tempestuous three-year relationship where they frequently argued, broke-up, and got back together. They also had a son together, Coryan. Defendant spent many nights a week at Courtney's house, even though he formally resided with the Gaiter family around the corner. On the day of the shootings, Courtney and defendant had been arguing throughout the day.
The shootings of Tamara and Christie were fatal. Each had two bullet wounds to the head, one of which was sustained at close range. Courtney had bullet fragments in her right frontal lobe due to the shooting, and her left ring finger was nearly detached. Defendant's friend, 17-year-old Donovan Payne, testified that defendant stated that he was going to kill Courtney. After the shootings, defendant realized that he had done something wrong, and thirty minutes later, he turned himself in at the police station.
People v. Patterson, 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 45 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2007) Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals. His appellate brief raised two claims: (1) the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of manslaughter, and (2) the trial court erroneously prevented Petitioner from introducing defense evidence. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions in an unpublished opinion. Patterson, supra. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court that raised the same two claims. The application was denied by form order. People v. Patterson, 731 N.W.2d 713 .
Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus based on two claims:
I. The failure to instruct appellant's jury regarding the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter constitutes reversible error.
II. Appellant was denied his constitutional right to present evidence in support of his defense.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) imposes the following standard of review for habeas cases:
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.
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.
In his first habeas claim, Petitioner alleges that the trial court erred when it denied his request for a jury instruction on manslaughter. The Michigan Court of Appeals thoroughly reviewed this claim and rejected it on the merits:
The trial court properly denied defendant's request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter because a rational view of the evidence did not support an instruction. A criminal defendant has the right to have a properly instructed jury. People v. Rodriguez, 463 Mich. 466, 472; 620 N.W.2d 13 (2000). "[I]nstructions must include all elements of the crime charged and must not exclude consideration of material issues, defenses, and theories for which there is supporting evidence." People v. Kurr, 253 Mich. App. 317, 327; 654 N.W.2d 651 (2002). A defendant's request for a jury People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335, 357; 646 N.W.2d 127 (2002). Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, is a lesser included offense of murder. People v. Mendoza, 468 Mich. 527, 540-541; 664 N.W.2d 685 (2003). "Consequently, when a defendant is charged with murder, an instruction for voluntary... manslaughter must be given if supported by a rational view of the evidence." Id. at 541.
The element that distinguishes murder from manslaughter is malice. People v. Gillis, 474 Mich 105, 138; 712 N.W.2d 419 (2006). To prove voluntary manslaughter, a prosecutor must show that the defendant killed in the heat of passion, that the passion was caused by adequate provocation, and that there was not a lapse of time during which a reasonable person could have controlled his passions. People v. Tierney, 266 Mich. App. 687, 714; 703 N.W.2d 204 (2005). "[P]rovocation is the circumstance that negates the presence of malice." Mendoza, supra at 536. "The degree of provocation required to mitigate a killing from murder to manslaughter 'is that which causes the defendant to act out of passion rather than reason'" and "'that which would cause a reasonable person to lose control.'" Tierney, supra at 714-715, quoting People v Sullivan, 231 Mich. App. 510, 518; 586 N.W.2d 578 (1998), affd 461 Mich. 992 (2000). But "[n]ot every hot-tempered individual who flies into a rage at the slightest insult can claim manslaughter." People v Pouncey, 437 Mich. 382, 389; 471 N.W.2d 346 (1991).
In this case, defendant claims that the existing record supports a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the evidence is sufficient to establish that he mayhave acted out of passion rather than reason. The shootings arose out of the circumstances surrounding the tumultuous three-year relationship defendant had with Courtney. At the time of the shootings, Courtney was defendant's girlfriend, and she is also the mother of defendant's son, Coryan.
At trial, defendant introduced evidence of his volatile relationship with Courtney. Defendant explained that during the last three years, Courtney had repeatedly called and hung up on him. Courtney stated at trial that on the day of the shootings, she had called defendant to make him angry. At trial, defendant claimed that he considered his relationship with Courtney to be exclusive, but in the past three years, he had witnessed Courtney having sexual relations with other men. According to defendant, this made him feel low and angry. Defendant testified that when he and Courtney had an argument, she would taunt him by saying that Coryan was not his son. Defendant confessed that, long before the shootings occurred, defendant had been involved in an altercation with one of Courtney's male friends, Julius, because defendant felt disrespected when he saw the male friend pick up defendant's son. Defendant stated that he knew about Christie being a male friend of Courtney's because at some time in the past he had found a letter from Christie to Courtney on Courtney's dresser. Defendant said that in the past Courtney had told defendant that Christie was a drug dealer and that Christie would kill defendant. At trial, defendant's sister, Sharea Patterson, testified that sometime after the shootings, Courtney had told her that Courtney felt guilty for having tried to create a fight between Christie and defendant the day of the shootings.
Defendant asserts on appeal that on the day of the shootings, there was already an ongoing fight between him and Courtney that fueled defendant's passions. That morning, sometime before 12:00 p.m., defendant and Courtney argued over money for diapers. Later that day, sometime before 3:00 p.m., defendant and Courtney had a telephone conversation where Courtney threatened to tell the police that defendant had pointed a gun at her face the previous week. Defendant did own a gun that he and Courtney had hidden between the mattress and the wall in Courtney's room. Defendant testified that 30 minutes after this telephone conversation, he returned to Courtney's house to retrieve the gun...
To continue reading
Request your trial