Stokes v. Haas

• Decision Date: 09 July 2014
• Docket Number: Civil No. 2:07-CV-11341
• Citation: Stokes v. Haas, Civil No. 2:07-CV-11341 (E.D. Mich. Jul 09, 2014)
• Parties: MICHAEL STOKES, Petitioner, v. RANDALL HAAS, Respondent,
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

MICHAEL STOKES, Petitioner, v. RANDALL HAAS, Respondent,

Civil No. 2:07-CV-11341

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: July 9, 2014

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER ON REMAND DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY, AND GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO APPEAL IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Michael Stokes, ("Petitioner"), presently confined at the Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.¹In his application, filed pro se, petitioner challenges his conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, M.C.L.A. 750.84; and being an habitual offender, M.C.L.A. 769.12.This matter is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit following the reversal of the issuance of a conditional writ by this Court.For thereasons that follow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

I.Background

Petitioner was originally charged with assault with intent to commit murder.Following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court, in which petitioner represented himself with the assistance of standby counsel, petitioner was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder.

The complainant testified that he had been drinking alcohol and consuming drugs with several people including petitioner on the day of the incident.(Tr.10/12/04, p. 107).The complainant and petitioner went to the store and bought additional alcoholic beverages, which they took to a park and drank.(Id. at p. 108).After finishing the beverages, the complainant decided to leave.As he was leaving, petitioner asked him for money.(Id. at p. 110).The complainant informed petitioner that he did not have any more money and turned to leave.As he did so, the complainant felt a pinch in his back and petitioner grabbing him.(Id. at p. 112).The complainant turned towards petitioner and the men began to fight.As the complainant separated away from petitioner, he noticed that he was bleeding.(Id. at p. 116).Petitioner fled the scene, while the complainant walked to a nearby hospital, where he collapsed.The complainant was stabbed numerous times in the back, chest, and abdomen.One of the woundseviscerated his bowel and another caused his lung to collapse.The complainant also suffered defensive wounds to his arms and wrists.(Tr. 10/13,2004, p. 66).

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal.People v. Stokes, No. 258928(Mich.Ct.App.April 25, 2006);lv. den.476 Mich. 868; 720 N.W. 2d 314(2006).

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he sought habeas relief on the following four grounds:

I.There was constitutionally insufficient evidence admitted at trial to justify consideration of assault with intent to murder charges.

II.Petitioner's trial was rendered unfair by the omission of a necessary jury instruction regarding the reliability of the victim's testimony.

III.Petitioner's trial was rendered unfair by the omission of a necessary jury instruction regarding self-defense.

IV.There was constitutionally insufficient evidence admitted at trial to support Petitioner's conviction.

Respondent filed an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

In reviewing the trial court record to determine the validity of petitioner's claims, as well as the affirmative defenses raised by respondent, this Court became aware of a fact that was not brought to its attention by either litigant, or noted by the Michigan Court of Appeals in their opinion, namely, that petitioner represented himself at trial, after expressing dissatisfaction on the first day of trial with his trial counsel's representation.This Court entered an opinion and orderholding the petition for writ of habeas corpus in abeyance to permit petitioner to return to the state courts to exhaust additional claims, specifically his claim that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.The Court also administratively closed the case.Stokes v. Wolfenbarger, No. 2008 WL 495371(E.D. Mich.February 20, 2008).

Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the trial court, which was denied.People v. Stokes, No. 04-07072-01(Third Circuit Court, May 20, 2008).The Michigan appellate courts denied petitioner leave to appeal.People v. Stokes, No. 286305(Mich.Ct.App.January 22, 2009);lv. den.485 Mich. 883; 772 N.W. 2d 55(2009).

On November 9, 2009, this Court granted petitioner's motion to reopen the habeas petition and also permitted him to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus to add a claim that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Sixth Amendment right to trial counsel.

On November 4, 2011, this Court granted petitioner a conditional writ of habeas corpus, finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel at his trial.The Court ordered that petitioner be afforded a new trial with the assistance of counsel within 90 days or an unconditional writ would issue.SeeStokes v. Scutt, 821 F. Supp. 2d 898(E.D. Mich.2011).Because the Court granted habeas relief on thisclaim, the Court declined to address the merits of petitioner's remaining claims.Id.

On May 22, 2013, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Court's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus, finding that petitioner's waiver of counsel claim was procedurally defaulted.The Sixth Circuit also remanded the matter to this Court for consideration of petitioner's remaining claims.Stokes v. Scutt, 527 Fed. Appx. 358(6^th Cir.2013).The matter is now before this Court on remand to adjudicate petitioner's first four claims that he raised in his original habeas petition.

II.Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended byThe Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 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 decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts.Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06(2000).An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case."Id. at 409.A federal habeas court may not "issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly."Id. at 410-11.

The Supreme Court has explained that "[A]federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our federal system."Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340(2003).The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,'and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'"Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773(2010)((quotingLindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n. 7(1997);Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24(2002)(per curiam))."[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, 131 S. Ct.770, 786(2011)(citingYarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664(2004)).The Supreme Court has emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable."Id.(citingLockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75(2003)).Furthermore, pursuant to § 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.

III.Discussion

A.Claims # 1 and # 4.The sufficiency of evidence claims.

The Court will consolidate petitioner's two sufficiency of evidence claims together for judicial clarity.

In his first claim, petitioner argues that the judge erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the original assault with intent to commit murder charge on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that petitioner had an intent to kill the victim so as to permit this charge to be submitted to the jury.

Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on his first claim because he was acquitted of the assault with intent to commit murder charge."[C]learly established Supreme Court law provides that a defendant has a right not to beconvicted except upon proof of every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt; the Supreme Court has never held that the submission of a charge, upon which there is insufficient evidence, violates a defendant's constitutional rights where the defendant is acquitted of that charge."Long v. Stovall, 450 F. Supp. 2d 746, 752(E.D. Mich.2006)(quoting Skrzycki v. Lafler, 347 F. Supp.2d 448, 453(E.D. Mich.2004)(...