Maxwell v. Campbell

MONTEZ MAXWELL, Petitioner, v. SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.^[1]

No. 2:20-CV-11141

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

May 3, 2022

OPINION & ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY & DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

This is a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Montez Maxwell (“Petitioner”) was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b, following a joint trial before separate juries with codefendant Victoria Lynn Solomon in the Wayne County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and two years imprisonment on those convictions in 2017. In his pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to admit certain evidence. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies the habeas petition. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

II. Facts and Procedural History

Petitioner's convictions arise from the shooting death of Tyrone Delaney in Wayne County, Michigan during the early morning hours on June 22, 2016. The Michigan Court of Appeals described the underlying 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:

Delaney fathered three of Solomon's children. Testimony at trial explained that Solomon and Delaney had an off-and-on relationship over a period of several years. The relationship was abusive, and Delaney had received two misdemeanor convictions, in 2009 and 2010, for assaulting Solomon. Nonetheless, testimony presented at trial indicated that Solomon frequently took all six of her children to the home of Kalua Hudson, who is Delaney's mother, to feed and bathe them. Solomon was comfortable leaving her children with Hudson and her family. A few days before the murder, Solomon had brought Delaney's children to visit with him at Hudson's home. For reasons discussed in more detail later in this opinion, Delaney had been absent for some time, and had recently begun living at Hudson's home at the time of his death.

In the afternoon of June 21, 2016, one of Delaney's sisters, Tanysha Black (Tanysha), picked up Solomon and her children. Plans had been made for Delaney to have his two youngest children, approximately 1-year-old twins, stay overnight at Hudson's home. When Tanysha brought Solomon to Hudson's home, there was no animosity; in fact, Solomon, Delaney, and others sat together for about half an hour before Tanysha drove Solomon and her other children to a restaurant. But while Solomon was at Hudson's home, she asked Tanysha to retrieve Solomon's purse. Solomon explained that she had a handgun in her purse, and did not want the children to find it. Solomon did not explain why she had the gun with her. Tanysha retrieved the purse and saw the gun, which she described as a black and chrome .38 caliber handgun.

During the evening and into the night, Solomon and Delaney argued via telephone and text message. It appears that the primary issue was Delaney's complaint that Solomon did not provide enough diapers for the children when she dropped them off with him. Eventually, Solomon grew frustrated and demanded that her children be returned to her. Delaney refused, explaining that it was too late at night for Solomon to get the children, who were asleep. Solomon was not satisfied, and began calling friends and family members, looking for someone to drive her to Hudson's home. During these calls, Solomon began threatening to kill Delaney if he did not return the children.

At the time, Solomon was dating and living with Maxwell. Using information regarding what towers their respective cellular telephones were interacting with during the relevant timeframe, it appears that Solomon and Maxwell traveled to Hudson's home between 1:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. on June 22, 2016. Tameka Black (Tameka), another of Delaney's siblings, was at Hudson's home because Delaney had asked her to bring diapers. Tameka explained that she saw Delaney walk out of the home and head in an unexpected direction. This drew Tameka outside, who saw that Solomon was standing outside the home.

Delaney and Solomon had a verbal argument over the children. During this argument, Solomon spat on Delaney, and Delaney slapped Solomon. Hudson was called outside, and was seemingly able to calm the situation to some extent. But as Delaney was beginning to walk away, Solomon made a threat, stating, “I'm going to get somebody to shoot you.” Solomon took her cellular telephone out and said something that went unheard by the witnesses. However, Delaney responded by stating, “Oh, b****, you're still throwing threats at me.” He approached Solomon and slapped her a second time. Hudson again intervened, however, telling Delaney to stop, which he did.

According to Tameka, Solomon then began backing away from Delaney, seemingly leading him toward the nearby intersection. Delaney followed Solomon. Solomon suddenly looked to her right, and at that point, Maxwell emerged from behind a group of bushes. He was dressed all in black, and had a gun drawn. He ran toward Delaney, reached around Hudson, and fired. Delaney pushed Hudson away and tried to retreat, but tripped and fell while running. Maxwell then continued firing bullets into Delaney, who was on the ground, while Hudson stood by, imploring Maxwell to stop. Solomon stood by and did not intervene. Delaney died at the scene. An autopsy found nine bullets inside his body, and wounds to his face, neck, shoulder, arm, chest, back, hand, and foot. A gun matching the description of the one seen earlier in Solomon's purse was found discarded at the scene of the murder. The gun had no live rounds of ammunition left.

Solomon was arrested at the scene. Maxwell fled, but turned himself into police later that day, and admitted to shooting Delaney. Maxwell claimed that he shot Delaney because Delaney was fighting with Solomon, and Maxwell was aware that Delaney had “beat her into a coma before.”3 Maxwell also stated that there were “a bunch of other people there and they started fighting with me too. I got a gun and shot [Delaney]. I was scared and took off running.” Maxwell explained that he left the gun he used at the scene.

People v. Maxwell, No. 337905, 2018 WL 6184913, *1-2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2018) (unpublished).

Following his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals essentially raising the same claims presented on habeas review. The court denied relief on those claims and affirmed his convictions. Id. at pp. 2-6. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in a standard order. People v. Maxwell, 503 Mich. 1020, 925 N.W.2d 878 (2019).

Petitioner thereafter filed his federal habeas petition raising the following claims:

I. There was insufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree premeditated murder and felony firearm because he acted in lawful self-defense of another.

II. The trial court violated his due process rights by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine (i.e. admit evidence) about Tyrone Delaney just getting out of prison.

Respondent filed an answer to the habeas petition contending that it should be denied because the second claim is procedurally defaulted in part and both claims lack merit.

III. 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 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.

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 find a state court's application of [Supreme Court] precedent ‘unreasonable,' the state court's decision must have...