MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Loren Troueze Robinson filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions for extortion, delivery of a controlled substance of less than 50 grams, second offense (crack cocaine), unlawful imprisonment, and aggravated assault. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 150 to 360 for the extortion conviction, 38 to 480 months for the delivery of a controlled substance conviction, 120 to 270 months for the false imprisonment conviction, and 365 days for the aggravated assault conviction.
Petitioner alleges that:
I. Petitioner's convictions should be overturned because there was insufficient credible evidence at trial to prove Petitioner guilty of the crime.
II. The trial court denied Petitioner a fair trial and his due process rights by denying the motion to file a late notice of alibi and his motion for a new trial.
III. Petitioner's sentences were invalid because they were based on inaccurate information, i.e., improper scoring of the legislatively imposed sentencing guidelines, use of an incorrect burden of proof, and insufficient facts, thereby violating his due process rights.
IV. Correctly scoring the guidelines would require resentencing.
V. Petitioner was denied his right to due process of law under the federal and state constitutions where he was never arraigned on the charges in the felony information brought against him and he did not waive his right to an arraignment.
VI. The trial court violated Petitioner's due process rights by refusing to appoint substitute counsel where a conflict developed over fundamental trial tactics and defense trial counsel failed to subpoena exculpatory witnesses despite repeated demand.
VII. Petitioner was denied his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial where he was shackled.
VIII. Petitioner was denied a fair trial through the prosecution's withholding of crucial evidence with respect to the full extent of the plea deal offered to Petitioner's co-defendant in exchange for testimony against Petitioner at trial.
IX. Due process requires vacating the trial court's assessment for court costs, fees, and restitution where the trial court failed to consider Petitioner's indigency and ability to pay during his incarceration.
X. The trial court's order to remit prisoner funds for fines, costs, and assessments is in clear error and must be corrected where it inaccurately indicates that Petitioner owes a balance greater than what was actually ordered by the court.
XI. Petitioner was denied his state and federal constitutional rights to effective assistance of trial counsel where counsel failed to (1) insure that Petitioner was informed of the nature of the charges brought against him in the information; (2) move for a mistrial after it came to his attention that jurors might be aware that Petitioner was shackled; (3) investigate the specifics of the plea deal the prosecutor offered to Petitioner's co-defendant in exchange for his testimony; and (4) object to Petitioner's ability to pay restitution and court costs during the period of Petitioner's incarceration due to his indigency.
In April of 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) became effective. Because this petition was filed after the effective date of the AEDPA, this Courtmust follow the standard of review established in that statute. Under the AEDPA, an application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a state conviction cannot be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the adjudication: "(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 upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
The AEDPA limits the source of law to cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This provision marks a "significant change" and prevents the district court from looking to lower federal court decisions in determining whether the state decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1998). To justify a grant of habeas corpus relief under this provision of the AEDPA, a federal court must find a violation of law "clearly established" by holdings of the Supreme Court, as opposed to its dicta, as of the time of the relevant state court decision. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000). Recently, the Supreme Court held that a decision of the state court is "contrary to" such clearly established federal law "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Id. A state court decision will be deemed an "unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law "if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. A federal habeas court may not find a state adjudication to be "unreasonable" "simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously orincorrectly." Id. at 412. Rather, the application must also be "unreasonable." Id. Further, the habeas court should not transform the inquiry into a subjective one by inquiring whether all reasonable jurists would agree that the application by the state court was unreasonable. Id. at 410 (disavowing Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir. 1996)). Rather, the issue is whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law is "objectively unreasonable." Williams, 529 U.S. at 409.
The AEDPA requires heightened respect for state factual findings. Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1998). The habeas corpus statute has long provided that the factual findings of the state courts, made after a hearing, are entitled to a presumption of correctness. This presumption has always been accorded to findings of state appellate courts, as well as the trial court. See Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 546 (1981); Smith v. Jago, 888 F.2d 399, 407 n.4 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 961 (1990). Under the AEDPA, a determination of a factual issue made by a state court is presumed to be correct. The petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Warren v. Smith, 161 F.3d 358, 360-61 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1040 (1999).
Petitioner claims that his convictions should be overturned because there was insufficient credible evidence at trial to prove Petitioner's guilt. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's claim stating:
Defendant argues that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. We review de novo challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Cline, 276 Mich App 634, 642; 741 NW2d 563 (2007). We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the prosecution proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Most of the defendant's argument is an attempt to reargue the credibility of the witnesses. Defendant claims that the victim, Joshua Karamalegos, was not a credible witness for numerous reasons, including that he lied to the police. Defendant also claims that Victor Sawyer, a codefendant, was not credible because Sawyer received a plea agreement and that his own testimony, because it was supported by the testimony of two witnesses, was credible. The credibility of the witnesses was a question for the jury, People v Harrison, 283 Mich App 374, 378; 768 NW2d 98 (2009), and we will not interfere with the jury's role in determining the credibility of the witnesses, People v. Williams, 268 Mich App 416, 419; 707 NW2d 624 (2005). Accordingly, we reject defendant's attempts to reargue witness credibility.
Defendant claims that his convictions for extortion and unlawful imprisonment were not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no threat of harm against Joshua if he did not pay the $1,000, his drug debt, to defendant. The crime of extortion requires the malicious communication of a threat, made with the intent to extort money or to obtain a pecuniary advantage, to injure a person or a person's property. MCL 750.213; People v Fobb, 145 Mich App 786, 790; 378 NW2d 600 (1985). The elements of unlawful imprisonment, as relevant to the present case, include the restraint of a person to facilitate the commission of another offense. People v Railer, 288 Mich App 213, 217; 792 NW2d 776 (2010). Joshua testified that, after he became persistent that he could not get the money unless he went back to Niles, Vincent Wiggins, codefendant, hit Joshua in the head and that, at some time, defendant told Joshua that he was not leaving until he paid the money. Then, as instructed, during one of the telephone calls with his father, Themelis (Tim) Karamalegos, Joshua told Tim that Tim would not see him again if he did not get the money. Defendant did not release Joshua until Tim exchanged the money. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that a
...
