Richards v. Taskila

• Decision Date: 31 March 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:20-cv-22
• Parties: KYLE B. RICHARDS, Petitioner, v. KRIS TASKILA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

KYLE B. RICHARDS, Petitioner, v. KRIS TASKILA, Respondent.

Case No. 2:20-cv-22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

March 31, 2020

Honorable Robert J. Jonker

OPINION

This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to "screen out" petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed because it fails to raise a meritorious federal claim.

Discussion

I. Factual allegations

Petitioner Kyle B. Richards is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF) in Baraga County, Michigan. On October 20, 2014, following a one-day jury trial in the Ionia County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of assault of a prison employee—Petitioner spat on an MDOC Corrections Officer—in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.197c. On December 16, 2014, the court initially sentenced Petitioner as a fourth habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.12, to a prison term of 4 years, 2 months to 40 years. On May 1, 2018, following an order of remand from the Michigan Court of Appeals, Petitioner was resentenced, again as a fourth habitual offender, to a prison term of 3 years, 10 months to 40 years.

On February 20, 2020, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition raising six grounds for relief, as follows:

I. Mr. Richards was deprived of his constitutional right to self-representation by the trial court's summary denial of his timely request to go pro se.

II. Mr. Richards was denied his due process rights by the destruction of evidence in bad faith.

III. Mr. Richards's due process rights were violated by the trial court and state prosecutor who failed to provide timely written notice of "habitual charges" in accordance to Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.13.

IV. The trial court failed to impose a sentence that is proportionate to Mr. Richards's circumstances and the circumstances of his offenses.

V. A sentence near the top of the sentencing guideline range constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for an offender with serious mental health problems.

VI. The top end of the sentence for spitting on a guard is cruel and unusual because with [Mr. Richards's] condition of Asperger's Syndrome, 40 years is a death sentence.

(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.5-10, 16, 24, 29, 37, 45, 50, 57.)

The Michigan Court of Appeals described the facts underlying Petitioner's offense as follows:

On January 3, 2013, corrections officers Christopher Balmes and Christopher Hudson escorted defendant to the segregation unit. Balmes, the victim in this case, testified that he had not previously dealt with, seen, or heard of defendant before January 3, 2013. According to the victim, defendant was handcuffed behind his back, and Hudson and the victim were each on one side of defendant holding one of his arms while escorting him. The victim testified that defendant was not yelling but that he seemed upset. Hudson testified that defendant made some statements directly to him during the escort. Hudson further testified that defendant made a comment that the officers would not be able to do anything if he assaulted them. The victim testified that they first took defendant to the shower because, before inmates go to the segregation unit, they are strip-searched in the shower to make sure they do not have any contraband. Once they arrived at the shower cell, defendant was placed into the shower cell. The victim testified that the door closed behind defendant and automatically locked.

According to the victim, he turned to walk away after defendant was placed in the shower cell, and defendant "crouched down next to an opening in the wall [known as a 'restraint slot'] and spit through it, hitting [the victim] in the arm." Hudson testified that through his peripheral vision he also saw defendant bend down, spit through the restraint slot, and hit the victim's arm with saliva. The victim, who was wearing a short-sleeved uniform, testified that the saliva landed on his right forearm and pant-leg area and that the saliva "was basically a spit spray." The victim further testified that the saliva was "[n]ot a big wad," did not contain phlegm or blood, and hit a section of him rather than just one spot. According to the victim, it was not possible for the substance on his arm to be water or something else from the shower because he saw defendant spit on him and because there were no other inmates in the shower cell besides defendant.

The victim's supervisor, John Nicewicz, was standing in the vicinity when the incident happened. The victim testified that, as a reaction to being spat on, he walked over and told his supervisor because the supervisor needed to know about misconduct. Nicewicz testified that he was turned away and did not see defendant spit on the victim but that the victim told him that "he just got spat on." According to Nicewicz, the saliva "was basically clear" and "kind of looked like a spray or a mist." Nicewicz further testified that he believed that the substance was spit because the shower was not on and because it did not look like water. The victim testified that he made a written report of the misconduct and that Nicewicz took pictures of the areas containing saliva. Using a digital camera, Nicewicz took pictures of the victim's arm and pant leg, which were admitted at trial.

People v. Richards, 891 N.W.2d 911, 915-16 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) rev'd in part 903 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. 2017). "The facts as recited by the Michigan Court of Appeals are presumed correct onhabeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)." Shimel v. Warren, 838 F.3d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 2016) (footnote omitted).

The Michigan Court of Appeals reports that Petitioner filed numerous motions in pro per and changed attorneys several times during the pretrial phase of the criminal proceedings. People v. Richards, 891 N.W.2d at 916. Petitioner rejected his first appointed counsel and his request for new counsel was granted on April 22, 2014. Id. The week scheduled for Petitioner's trial, Petitioner rejected his second counsel and, once again, sought new counsel. At the June 3, 2014 hearing, the trial court asked Petitioner if he wanted to represent himself; Petitioner responded, "No." Id. The trial court appointed new counsel.

Petitioner filed a motion to replace his third counsel. On August 12, 2014, the court conducted a hearing on the motion. At the hearing, counsel represented that he and Petitioner had discussed the matter further and that Petitioner was withdrawing the motion.

On October 20, 2014, the Ionia County Circuit Court commenced Petitioner's trial. During voir dire, defense counsel informed the court that Petitioner wanted to represent himself. The trial judge refused Petitioner's request:

[Defendant], I'm going to interrupt you because you are not representing yourself. We have had numerous pretrial motions in this matter and this is now the 3rd attorney who has been appointed to represent you. [Defense counsel] has worked very hard to accommodate your requests and to present those to the Court. The Court finds that your request to represent yourself is untimely. Again, you've had multiple opportunities to present this issue to the Court and so your request to represent yourself is denied here today.

Id. at 917. The trial proceeded and the jury found Petitioner guilty of the charged offense.

The trial court initially sentenced Petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months to 40 years. The court selected Petitioner's minimum sentence from within the minimum sentence range provided by the Michigan sentencing guidelines. Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence. During the pendency of that appeal, Petitioner filed a motion for resentencing in thetrial court based on a scoring error relating to one of the offense variables. The prosecutor conceded the error.

Correction of the error pushed the 4-year, 2-month minimum sentence outside of the guidelines minimum sentence range. The prosecutor, however, argued that the trial court should depart from the guidelines and maintain the 4-year, 2-month minimum. Such a departure was facilitated by intervening changes in the law.

Between the court's initial imposition of sentence and the decision on Petitioner's motion for resentencing, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its decision in People v. Lockridge, 870 N.W.2d 502 (2015). The Lockridge decision made the previously mandatory Michigan sentencing guidelines discretionary. The trial court judge acknowledged this change and, exercising his discretion, kept Petitioner's minimum sentence at 4 years, 2 months even though that determination represented a departure from the Michigan sentencing guidelines.

Petitioner, through the brief he filed with the assistance of counsel and his pro per supplemental brief, raised in the Michigan Court of Appeals the issues he raises in this Court as habeas issues I, II, and III. He also raised an issue regarding his sentence. By opinion issued initially on April 26, 2016, and then approved for publication on June 7, 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's challenges and affirmed the trial court. People v. Richards, 891 N.W.2d 911 (Mich....