Rodriguez v. Huss
| Decision Date | 09 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 15-cv-11155 |
| Parties | LAURENCIO L. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. ERICA HUSS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Petitioner Laurencio L. Rodriguez is a state prisoner in custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. In 2015, he filed a pro se habeas corpus petition challenging his Michigan conviction and sentence of 450 to 840 months (37½ to 70 years) for second-degree murder, Mich Comp. Laws § 750.317. See ECF No. 1. Although petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, he requested a stay of his federal case so that he could pursue additional post-conviction remedies in state court. See ECF No. 3.
The Court granted petitioner's motion for a stay, see ECF No. 6, and after petitioner unsuccessfully concluded state collateral proceedings, he returned to federal court with a motion to re-open his federal case, see ECF No. 11, and a pro se amended petition, see ECF No. 11-1.
The amended petition raises the three claims that petitioner presented to the state courts on direct review and the three claims that he raised in the State's appellate courts on state collateral review. Those six claims allege that: (I) the trial court erred in denying petitioner's motion for a change of venue; (II) petitioner was denied his right to be present during a conference on juror questionnaires; (III) petitioner was denied effective assistance when defense counsel (A) failed to use all his peremptory challenges to excuse certain jurors and (B) failed to object to petitioner's absence from a conference on juror questionnaires; (IV) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to raise meritorious issues about trial counsel on direct appeal; (V) the State failed to prove the elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt; and (VI) prosecutorial misconduct denied petitioner his right to a fair trial. See Am. Pet. at pp. 4-9 (ECF No. 11-1, PageID.144-149).
The Court granted petitioner's motion to re-open his case, directed the Clerk of Court to serve the amended petition on the State, and ordered the State to file a response to the amended petition. See ECF No. 13. Respondent Erica Huss, through the Michigan Attorney General, then filed an answer in opposition to the petition. See ECF No. 21. She urges the Court to deny the amended petition on grounds that habeas claims II, IV, V, and VI are procedurally defaulted or meritless and the state court's decision on claims I through III did not involve an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See id. at pp. i-iii and 75, PageID.2352-54, 2429.
Having reviewed the pleadings and the state-court record, the Court agrees that petitioner is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the Court will deny the amended petition and a certificate of appealability, but allow petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis if he appeals this decision.
Petitioner was charged with open murder: first-degree, premeditated murder and second-degree murder. He was tried before a jury in Shiawassee County Circuit Court. The Michigan Court of Appeals briefly summarized the facts as follows:
Defendant's conviction arose from the July 2000 death of Rachel Scott, who was last seen alive on July 6, 2000. The victim's badly decomposed body was discovered on July 20, 2000, under a pile of brush in a wooded area. The manner or cause of death could not be determined. Although defendant was considered a suspect, the case remained unsolved for several years. In 2009, a witness came forward and implicated defendant in the victim's death. Physical evidence corroborated the witness's claim that defendant had placed the victim's body in the trunk of his car. A prison inmate also testified that defendant made statements implicating himself in the victim's death.
People v. Rodriguez, No. 307317, 2013 WL 3766591, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. July 18, 2013) (unpublished). Petitioner's defense was that prosecution witness Jeremy Seger (“Seger”) killed the victim, that he merely helped Seger move the body after the murder, and that Seger lied about petitioner's involvement in the crime.
On September 28, 2011, the jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder, see 9/28/11 Trial Tr. at p. 1409 (ECF No. 20-14, PageID.1833), and on November 4, 2011, the trial court sentenced petitioner to prison for 450 to 840 months with 207 days credit for time served. See 11/4/11 Sentence Hr'g Tr. at p. 42 (ECF No. 20-15, PageID.1880).
In an appeal of right, petitioner raised the following claim through counsel:
Extensive, highly prejudicial pretrial publicity created a presumption of prejudice that denied defendant his right to a fair trial by a panel of impartial jurors. The trial court reversibly erred in (1) holding part of [the] jury selection outside defendant's presence and (2) in denying defendant a change of venue. Also, counsel's failure to exhaust his peremptory challenges on jurors who could not be impartial, denied defendant effective assistance of counsel. U.S. CONST, AMENDS VI, XIV.
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal at i (ECF No. 20-16, PageID.1930).
The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected all three parts of this claim and affirmed petitioner's conviction in a per curiam opinion. See Rodriguez, 2013 WL 3766591. Petitioner then applied for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which denied petitioner's application on December 23, 2014, because it was not persuaded to review the question presented to the court. See People v. Rodriguez, 495 Mich. 915; 840 N.W.2d 370 (2013).
On March 25, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court. See Shiawassee County Register of Actions (ECF No. 20-1, PageID.280). The motion challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting petitioner's conviction, (2) trial counsel's performance, and (3) the prosecutor's conduct. See Mot. for Relief from J. (ECF No. 20-18, PageID.2153).
On March 26, 2015, while the post-conviction motion remained pending in the state trial court, petitioner filed his initial habeas corpus petition and a motion to stay the proceedings and hold his petition in abeyance. The grounds for relief in the initial habeas petition were: (1) petitioner was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, (2) his court-appointed trial attorney provided ineffective assistance, and (3) the State failed to establish the cause and manner of the victim's death. See Pet. at pp. 6-9 (ECF No. 1, PageID.5-8).
In his motion for a stay, petitioner explained that he simultaneously filed a motion for relief from judgment in state court. See Mot. to Stay at p. 5 (ECF No. 3, PageID.34). He asked the Court to stay the federal proceeding and to hold his habeas petition in abeyance while he exhausted state remedies. See id. at pp. 4-5, PageID.35-36. On April 21, 2015, the Court granted petitioner's motion for a stay and ordered petitioner to file a motion to reopen this case and an amended habeas petition within ninety days of exhausting state remedies if he was unsuccessful in state court and wished to re-open this case. The Court also closed this case for administrative purposes. See Order (ECF No. 6).
Meanwhile, on April 10, 2015, the state trial court denied petitioner's motion for relief from judgment in a reasoned order. The court stated that petitioner could have raised his three claims in the Court of Appeals and that he had failed to demonstrate “good cause” under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D)(3) for failing to raise the claims on appeal. See People v. Rodriguez, No. 11-1979-FC (Shiawassee Cty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 10, 2015); (ECF No. 20-19, PageID.2161-62). The court also stated that to the extent petitioner's claim about counsel was decided against him on appeal, the court would deny the motion on that basis as well. See id.
In a pro se application for leave to appeal the trial court's order, petitioner alleged that: (1) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to raise meritorious issues about trial counsel on direct appeal; (2) the State failed to prove the elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See Delayed Application for Leave to Appeal (ECF No. 20-20, PageID.2164-2215). The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal because petitioner had “failed to establish that the trial court erred in denying his motion for relief from judgment.” People v. Rodriguez, No. 329410 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2015) (ECF No. 20-20, PageID.2163).
Petitioner raised the same issues in the Michigan Supreme Court. See Pro Per Application for Leave to Appeal (ECF No. 20-21, PageID.2217-2259). On November 30, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because petitioner “failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under [Michigan Court Rule] 6.508(D).” People v. Rodriguez, 500 Mich. 895; 887 N.W.2d 187 (2016).
On February 21, 2017, petitioner moved for an extension to file an amended habeas corpus petition because prison officials misplaced his legal work and his legal writer lost most of the files stored on his computer. See Mot. (ECF No. 8, PageID.47-52). On July 14, 2017, the Court granted petitioner's request and gave him an additional ninety days to file a motion to re-open this case and an amended habeas corpus petition. See Order (ECF No. 10).
On October 2, 2017, petitioner filed his motion to re-open this case (ECF No. 11) and his amended petition for the writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial