Cottrell v. Woods

LEON COTTRELL, Petitioner, v. JAMES WOODS, Respondent.

2:15-cv-11237

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

November 30, 2020

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Leon Cottrell ("Petitioner") was convicted of first-degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.316, three counts of assault with intent to commit murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.83, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b, following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the first-degree murder conviction, concurrent terms of 20 to 40 years imprisonment on the assault convictions, and a consecutive term of two years imprisonment on the felony firearm conviction in 2011.

In his pleadings, as amended, Petitioner raises claims concerning the admission of other acts evidence, jury selection, the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, and misidentification. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies the amended habeas petition. The Court will also deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability, but it will grant permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner's convictions arise from a retaliatory shooting outside of a Detroit nightclub on December 19, 2010 that resulted in the death of one person and injury to another person. The Michigan Court of Appeals described the relevant facts, which are presumed correct on habeas review, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009), as follows:

On December 1, 2010, defendant was at a club in Detroit. He got into a verbal altercation with a friend of the victim, Ryan Stokes. The altercation escalated and led to Stokes and his friends being removed from the club. Afterward, Stokes's group went to a friend's house, and Carter Madlock, a mutual friend of Stokes and defendant, subsequently arrived in a car with others. Testimony revealed that Stokes approached the car and flashed his gun. Shortly thereafter, shots were fired. After driving away, Madlock called Stokes to discuss the shooting and defendant was overheard in the background of the conversation saying, "somebody shot at us, they gotta [sic] die." Madlock informed Stokes that the voice in the background was "H.P. Leon," a common nickname for defendant. Madlock said that defendant was angry and coming to get Stokes and his friends. On December 19, 2010, Stokes and Antwan Etheridge, along with two of their friends, were walking to their car from a club in Detroit when defendant opened fire on them, shooting Etheridge in the back and Stokes in the chest, killing Stokes. Defendant claimed that he was not the one who shot at Stokes and his friends.

People v. Cottrell, No. 306952, 2013 WL 4081224, *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2013).

Following his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals raising a claim concerning the admission of other act evidence. The court denied relief on that claim and affirmed Petitioner's convictions. Id. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v. Cottrell, 495 Mich. 916, 840 N.W.2d 352 (Dec. 23, 2013).

Petitioner dated his initial federal habeas petition on March 24, 2015. In that petition, he raised claims concerning the admission of other acts evidence, jury selection, and the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel. Petitioner also moved to stay the proceedings so that he could return to the state courts and exhaust the jury selection and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims. On April 13, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to stay the proceedings and administratively closed the case.

On June 10, 2015, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court raising claims concerning the jury selection and the effectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, which was denied on July 14, 2015. See Register of Actions, People v. Cottrell, Wayne Co. Cir. Ct. Case No. 11-002576-01-FC. Petitioner then filed a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Court ofAppeals, which was denied. People v. Cottrell, No. 331088 (Mich. Ct. App. April 28, 2016). Petitioner also filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People v. Cottrell, 500 Mich. 898, 887 N.W.2d 406 (Nov. 30, 2016).

Petitioner belatedly moved to reopen this case to proceed on an amended habeas petition. The Court granted that motion and reopened the case in October 2017. Respondent subsequently filed an answer to the amended petition contending that it should be denied because several claims are procedurally defaulted and all of the claims lack merit.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., sets forth the standard of review that federal courts must use when considering habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging their state court convictions. The AEDPA provides in relevant part:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in 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.

28 U.S.C. §2254(d) (1996).

"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 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) (quoting Lindh, 521 U.S. at 333, n. 7); 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, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing Yarborough 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. (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003)). 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. Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's rejection of his claim "was so lacking in justification that there was anerror well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Id; see also White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419-20 (2014). Federal judges "are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their decisions only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong." Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 316 (2015). A habeas petitioner cannot prevail as long as it is within the "realm of possibility" that fairminded jurists could find the state court decision to be reasonable. Woods v. Etherton, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1149, 1152 (2016).

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...