Pritchett v. Warren

• Decision Date: 09 July 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:15-cv-13233
• Parties: ANTHONY PRITCHETT, Petitioner, v. PAT WARREN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

ANTHONY PRITCHETT, Petitioner, v. PAT WARREN,¹ Respondent.

Case No. 2:15-cv-13233

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

July 9, 2019

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO AMEND THE DOCKET, DENYING PETITIONER'S HABEAS PETITIONS [1, 12], DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner Anthony Pritchett is confined in a Michigan prison and petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pritchett's imprisonment stems from convictions for second degree murder, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317; assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony ("felony firearm"), in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b.

Pritchett's initial habeas petition presented four grounds for relief: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) admission of a witness's prior record testimony was error; (3) the prosecutor's cross-examination of Pritchettregarding other, uncharged bad acts and his argument that Pritchett had an obligation to present witnesses were prejudicial and required a new trial; and (4) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to object when the trial court sentenced Pritchett to a minimum sentence that was more than two-thirds of the maximum sentence. See ECF 1.

Pritchett's amended habeas petition presented five additional grounds of relief: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his post-conviction motion for relief from judgment and for an evidentiary hearing; (2) newly-discovered evidence creates a viable self-defense claim; (3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel; (4) the trial court abused its discretion and violated Pritchett's confrontation rights by admitting a witness's prior record testimony; and (5) he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise certain claims in Pritchett's post-conviction state proceedings. See ECF 12.

Pritchett's claims are procedurally defaulted, not cognizable on habeas review, or meritless. And the state courts reasonably adjudicated the merits of some of Pritchett's claims. The Court will therefore deny Pritchett's habeas petition.

BACKGROUND

Pritchett waived his right to a jury trial and instead proceed with a bench trial in state trial court. People v. Pritchell,² No. 311052, 2014 WL 688560, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2014). The state appellate court summarized the facts of Pritchett's case. Between August 12 and August 13, 2011, "five people were shot in the backyardof a Detroit home." Id. A gunshot to the chest killed one victim, Tramaine Matlock. Id. The other four victims—including Devonta Washington—were not fatally injured. Id.

Nine, .45-caliber casings were found in a straight line along the fence in the backyard. According to testimony at trial, this evidence supported that there was one shooter, who stood in one place while firing a .45-caliber gun. [Pritchett], who was a member of a gang called The Take Over (TTO), was later arrested and charged with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, four counts of assault with intent to murder, a gang membership felony, and felony-firearm. Three of the assault with intent to murder charges were dismissed before trial. Washington testified at [Pritchett's] preliminary examination. However, he did not appear at trial. Detroit Police Detective Theopolis Williams testified that police officers were unable to locate Washington to serve him with a subpoena.

At trial, [Pritchett] raised a claim of self-defense. He testified that, while he was at a party in August of 2011, a group of men arrived. Of the men in the group, [Pritchett] recognized Washington and a man named "Vonte," who was a member of a rival gang. [Pritchett] testified that he and the group of men were 10 to 12 feet away from one another in the backyard when he saw Vonte displaying a rival gang sign and Washington holding a clip in his hand and reaching for his pocket. [Pritchett] testified that he believed that Washington was reaching for a gun, and so he fired his .45-caliber pistol four times in the direction of Washington. [Pritchett] was convicted by the trial court of second-degree murder for the death of Matlock, assault with intent to murder with respect to Washington, and felony-firearm.

Id. The trial court sentenced Pritchett to the following terms of imprisonment: (1) eighteen years and nine months to twenty-five years for the murder conviction; (2) a concurrent term of ten years and six months to fifteen years for the assault conviction; and (3) a consecutive term of two years for the felony-firearm conviction. Id.

Through counsel, Pritchett appealed his convictions and argued that (1) the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions; (2)Washington's testimony from the preliminary examination was erroneously admitted in evidence; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by (a) eliciting evidence of Pritchett's other "bad acts" and (b) arguing that Pritchett had an obligation to present witnesses. In a pro se supplemental brief, Pritchett argued that his trial attorney should have objected to his minimum sentence for second-degree murder and that the admission of Washington's testimony from the preliminary examination violated his right of confrontation. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Pritchett's convictions in a per curiam opinion. See id. And the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Pritchell, 497 Mich. 868 (2014).

Pritchett filed his habeas petition on September 14, 2015 and raised the four claims that he presented to the state courts on direct review. See ECF 1. He then moved to hold his petition in abeyance so that he could pursue additional state remedies for claims not included in his habeas petition. ECF 6. On November 13, 2015, the Court granted Pritchett's motion, held his petition in abeyance to allow him to initiate post-conviction, state-court proceedings, and administratively closed the case. ECF 7.

Pritchett subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court. He argued that: (1) he was entitled to a new trial because newly-discovered evidence gave rise to a viable claim of self-defense; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel by trial counsel's failure to (a) investigate, locate, and subpoena res gestae witnesses, (b) request an expert witness on fingerprints and firearms or ballistics, and (c) object to the prosecution's failure to provide the defense withpotentially exculpatory evidence from Devonta Washington's Metro PCS account; (3) the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right of confrontation when it allowed Washington's testimony from the preliminary examination to be read into the record; and (4) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise his other claims on appeal. The trial court denied Pritchett's motion in a reasoned decision. See ECF 15-7 (opinion on Pritchett's motion for relief from judgment in Wayne County Circuit Court, People v. Pritchell, No. 11-009262-01-FH).

Pritchett appealed the trial court's decision, but the Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal for failure to show that the trial court erred in denying his motion for relief from judgment. People v. Pritchell, No. 333222 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2016).³ On May 2, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because Pritchett failed to establish "entitlement to relief under [Michigan Court Rule] 6.508(D)." People v. Pritchell, 500 Mich. 981 (2017).

On July 18, 2017, Pritchett filed a motion to lift the Court's stay and an amended petition. ECF 11, 12. The amended petition raises the four claims that Pritchett presented during the post-conviction state court proceedings and an additional claim that the trial court erred by denying his motion for relief from judgment and his request for an evidentiary hearing. See ECF 12.

The Court reopened the case and directed Respondent to file a responsive pleading. ECF 13. Respondent filed a response and argued that Pritchett's claimslack merit, are procedurally defaulted, are not cognizable on habeas review, or were rejected by the state courts on reasonable grounds. ECF 14, PgID 138-40.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may not grant habeas relief to a state prisoner unless his claims were adjudicated on the merits and the state court adjudication was "contrary to" or resulted in an "unreasonable application of" clearly established Supreme Court law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

"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 [this] precedent." Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)).

The state court unreasonably applies Supreme Court precedent not when its application of precedent is merely "incorrect or erroneous" but when its application of precedent is "objectively unreasonable." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520-21 (2003) (internal citations omitted). "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, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 654 (2004)).

A federal court reviews only whether a state court's decision comports with clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision. Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34, 38 (2011). A state court...