Crowell v. Woods

FRANK ARTHUR CROWELL, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent.

Civil No. 2:15-CV-11243

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

January 19, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Frank Arthur Crowell, pro se, ("Petitioner"), is incarcerated at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, resulting from his conviction of five counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct ("CSC") causing injury,¹ one count of domestic violence,² and being a second offense habitual offender.³ He seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of the above offenses following a jury trial in the Saginaw County Circuit Court. This court recites verbatim the relevant facts relied upon by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on habeas review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):

Defendant and complainant met in December 2009 and began a dating relationship shortly after. Complainant testified that she had a consensual sexual relationship with defendant until he became very controlling and began to sexually abuse her. Complainant testified about different incidents where she was physically forced to engage in oral and anal sex with defendant. She testified that defendant would grab her, hold her down, and violently spank her.

*****************************************************

Here, complainant testified to various instances where defendant used force or coercion. She specifically stated that defendant forced her to perform oral sex on him by grabbing her hair and moving her head up and down. She testified that on one occasion she tried to push defendant away but he grabbed her and forced her down. She testified that he pushed her hard and would spank her. Complainant also testified that the day before officers responded to reports of a sexual assault, defendant raped her anally after first trying to physically force her to perform oral sex. Photographs of bruises on complainant's arms, which she testified happened when defendant grabbed her, were taken by the police. Moreover, complainant testified that defendant told her he would rape her girls if she did not do the activities he wanted her to do. She stated she felt like she did not have any other options.

People v. Crowell, No. 305466, 2012 WL 3321921, at * 1, 4 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2012).

Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id.

Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in the following order:

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Defendant argues that the warrantless search of the contents of his cell phone based solely on the third-party consent of the complainant violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). However, even if this evidence were to be suppressed, considering the weight and strength of the untainted evidence presented at trial, the defendant cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999).

People v. Crowell, 825 N.W.2d 585 (Mich. 2013).

Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment, which was denied. People v. Crowell, No. 10-34594-FC-3 (Saginaw Cnty. Cir. Ct. Jan. 9, 2014). The Michigan appellate courts denied Petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Crowell, No. 321223 (Mich. Ct. App. June 27, 2014); leave to appeal denied at 858N.W.2d 426 (Mich. 2015).

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds:

I. There was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.

II. The trial court erred in allowing into evidence video recordings for a cell phone taken in violation of the defendant's right against unlawful search and seizures.

III. The prosecution denied defendant a fair trial by introducing video recordings from his cell phone on the second day of trial in violation of the defendant's discovery demand.

IV. Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel where counsel met with the defendant through a security door of a noisy, over-crowded bull pen, a couple of minutes prior to the preliminary examination and was unfamiliar with the facts of the case which prevented counsel from explaining the ramifications of a plea offer to the defendant.

V. Defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under Lafler v. Cooper during the plea phases of the pretrial and trial.

VI. Defendant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel where trial counsel never filed a motion to suppress the warrantless search of the defendant's cell phone although it was clear that the complainant did not have mutual control to authorize the search of defendant's property.

VII. Reversal is required where the assistant prosecuting attorney committed a fraud upon the court by claiming to have no knowledge of the cell phone and incriminating evidence contained therein where the record demonstrates that the cell phone was known to the prosecution some five months prior.

VIII. Defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal where counsel omitted significant and obvious issues on appeal.

II. STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The 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) ((quoting Lindh 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, 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. at 102 (citing Lockyer 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. Claim # 1. The sufficiency of the evidence.

In his first claim, Petitioner argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree criminal sexual conduct because there was no credible evidence that he used force or coercion to accomplish the sex acts.

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner's claim:

Here, complainant testified to various instances where defendant used force or coercion. She specifically stated that defendant forced her to perform oral sex on him by grabbing her hair and moving her head up and down. She testified that on one occasion she tried to push defendant away but he grabbed her and forced her down. She testified that he pushed her hard and would spank her. Complainant also testified that the day before officers responded to reports of a sexual assault, defendant raped her anally after first trying to physically force her to perform oral sex. Photographs of bruises on complainant's arms, which she testified happened when defendant grabbed her, were taken by the police. Moreover, complainant testified that defendant told her he would rape her girls if she did not do the activities he wanted her to do. She stated she felt like she did not have any other

...