Stafford v. Davids

• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-11136
• Decision Date: 30 August 2023
• Parties: LAWRENCE STAFFORD, Petitioner, v. JOHN DAVIDS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

1

LAWRENCE STAFFORD, Petitioner, v. JOHN DAVIDS, Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-11136

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

August 30, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE HABEAS PETITION [ECF NO. 1]

Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge.

Petitioner Lawrence Stafford, a Michigan state prisoner confined at the Ionia Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is challenging his convictions by a Wayne County Circuit Court jury on charges of second-degree murder and felony firearm, for which he is serving prison terms of thirty to sixty years and two years respectively.

Now having reviewed the petition, Respondent's answer, and the Rule 5 materials, the Court concludes that the Michigan appellate courts were not unreasonable in affirming Petitioner's convictions. The petition will be dismissed.

I. Background

The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the facts of Petitioner's case as follows:

Defendants Lawrence Stafford and Travone Wilson were tried jointly, before a single jury. The jury acquitted both defendants of charges of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a) and (b), and a charge of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), but convicted them of the lesser offense of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony firearm), MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant Stafford to 30 to 60 years of imprisonment for the murder conviction, and a consecutive two-year term of imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction....

Defendants' convictions resulted from their participation in the fatal shooting of Ernest Tye in Tye's home. The defendants are brothers even though they have different last names. The principal issue at trial was defendants' identity as participants in the crime. The prosecutor presented evidence that defendant Stafford, defendant Wilson and a person named Willie Simms were seen outside the duplex where Tye lived in an upstairs unit, and they gained entrance after defendant Stafford kicked in the door. Defendants Stafford and Wilson entered the duplex, while Simms stayed behind, acting as a lookout. Henric Hayes, who lived in the downstairs unit of the duplex, heard concerning noises originating from the stairwell, opened his door, and saw Simms holding a gun and wearing plastic gloves. Hayes quickly slammed his door and, soon after, heard several gunshots originating from Tye's unit. Charles Deen, a neighbor who had observed the three men gain entry into the duplex, heard several gunshots and then saw defendant Stafford, defendant Wilson, and Simms flee from the duplex. Around the same time another witness, Mark Eddins, saw defendant Stafford defendant Wilson, and Simms fleeing from the area of the duplex, running toward a vacant house that the three men frequented. Defendants Stafford and Wilson both denied any involvement in the offense.

People v. Stafford, No. 336842, 2018 WL 4577192, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2018).

Petitioner appealed his convictions as of right. His appointed appellate attorney argued that his conviction on the murder and weapons charges were not supported by sufficient evidence. Petitioner raised three additional issues pro se,^[1]arguing (1), he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor committed fraud upon the court; (2), he was denied due process when the prosecution knowingly presented the testimony of witness who had been tampered with; and (3), he was denied a fair trial and due process when the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions. Stafford, 2018 WL 4577192. Petitioner applied to the Michigan Supreme Court for leave to appeal, but it denied leave in a standard form order (because it was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”). People v. Stafford, 504 Mich. 944, 931 N.W.2d 353 (2019).

Petitioner filed a timely petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He raises the same four issues he argued in the state appellate courts, which are as follows:

I. The conviction must be reversed where the substantive evidence of record was not legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stafford - as principal or aider and abettor - committed the murder and firearm offenses.

II. Petitioner was denied a fair trial where the prosecutor committed fraud upon the court.

III. Petitioner was denied due process when the prosecution knowingly presented the testimony of Charles Deen with whom it knew the victim's sister had tampered and bribed to provide his testimony.

IV. Petitioner was denied his state and federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process where the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony through the testimony of Charles Deen, their chief witness, in order to secure a conviction.

I. Legal Standard

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 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 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 [that] precedent.'” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). “[T]he ‘unreasonable application' prong of § 2254(d)(1) permits a federal habeas court to ‘grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of petitioner's case.'” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413); see also Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. However, “[i]n order for a federal court to find a state court's application of [Supreme Court] precedent ‘unreasonable,' the state court's decision must have been more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court's application must have been ‘objectively unreasonable.'” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21 (citations omitted); see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 409.

The AEDPA “imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating statecourt rulings . . . and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (internal citation 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) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Supreme Court has emphasized “that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable.” Id. at 102. Pursuant to section 2254(d), “a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or . . . could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision” of the Supreme Court. Id. Although section 2254(d), as amended by the AEDPA, does not completely bar federal courts from re-litigating claims that have previously been rejected in the state courts, a federal court may grant habeas relief only “in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with” the Supreme Court's precedents. Id. A “readiness to attribute error [to a state court] is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and follow the law.” Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002).

Section 2254(d)(1) limits a federal habeas court's review to a determination of whether the 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. Williams, 529 U.S. at 412; see also Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 122 (2009) (noting that the Supreme Court “has held on numerous occasions that it is not ‘an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law' for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by this Court”) (quoting Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125-26 (2008) (per curiam)); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003). Section 2254(d) “does not require a state court to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have been ‘adjudicated on the merits.'” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 100. Furthermore, it “does not require citation of [Supreme Court] cases-indeed, it does not even require awareness of [Supreme Court] cases, so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002)...