Case Law Peoples v. Johnson

Peoples v. Johnson

Document Cited Authorities (43) Cited in Related

**NOT FOR PUBLICATION**

OPINION

CECCHI, District Judge:

Presently before the Court is the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Edward Peoples ("Petitioner") brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court murder conviction. ECF No. 1. Respondents filed a response to the petition. ECF No. 9. Petitioner did not file a formal reply. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner's habeas petition and deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.

I. BACKGROUND

The Superior Court, Appellate Division summarized the factual background of this matter as follows in its opinion affirming Petitioner's conviction:

Following a jury trial, [Petitioner] was convicted of first-degree murder [in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:11-3a(1) and (2) (count two); first-degree attempted murder [in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:11-3 (count three); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon [in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:39-5b (count five); and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose [in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §] 2C:39-4a (count six)[.] At sentencing, the trial judge merged count six with count two and sentenced [Petitioner] on count two to a sixty-five year term of imprisonment, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J. [Stat. Ann. §] 2C:43-7.2. The judge also imposed a concurrent twenty-year term of imprisonment with seventeen years of parole ineligibility on count three, a concurrent five-year term of imprisonment on count five; and the appropriate assessments and penalties.
. . . .
The charges against [Petitioner] stem from the shooting death of Rahman Jenkins (Jenkins) in the parking lot of the Baxter Terrace apartment complex in Newark (the apartment complex). Duane Tims (Tims) testified at trial that he and Jenkins were long-time friends who once sold drugs together. On January 20, 2006[,] at approximately 8:00 p.m., he and Jenkins drove in Tim's van to the apartment complex, and went to the apartment of Marvin Shahid McLeod (McLeod). They were there a few minutes when a man, who was "jittery" and very nervous, came into the apartment and said something to the three men that caused them to leave immediately.
Tims, Jenkins, and McLeod crossed the parking lot and headed for Tims's van. Tims was in the lead, while Jenkins and McLeod walked a few feet behind him. Neither Tims nor Jenkins was armed. Tims reached and entered the van first, started it, and then heard a gunshot from behind the van, followed by several more gunshots. He opened the passenger door to facilitate Jenkins's entry, but Jenkins did not appear. He then opened the driver's door, looked toward the rear of the van, and saw Jenkins laying face down in the parking lot, with two men standing over him. One of the men was tall and slim, and the other was shorter and chubby. The shorter, chubbier man was pointing and shooting his gun at Jenkins. The man turned, pointed and fired the gun at Tims, but missed. Tims quickly drove from the parking lot. He recognized the shorter, chubbier man who shot at him as "Phat Boy," whom he had known for about ten years. At trial, he identified [Petitioner] as "Phat Boy."
Tims decided to return to the parking lot. On the way back, he stopped and reported the shooting to two New Jersey Institute of Technology police officers, who immediately went to the apartment complex. Tims did not otherwise speak to the police about the shooting until March 15, 2006, when he was contacted as part of the official murder investigation.
McLeod testified at trial that as he was following Jenkins through the parking lot, two men ran up to them, he heard shots, saw Jenkins fall, and then turned and ran back to his apartment. Contraryto Tims's description of the shooters, McLeod said they were both slender in build, though one was taller than the other. He also testified that he did not see [Petitioner] in the parking lot the night of the shooting.
Codefendant Joseph Richardson (Richardson)[, who agreed to testify as part of a plea agreement,] testified at trial that on the night of the shooting he was at his girlfriend's apartment in the apartment complex when [Petitioner], whose mother also had an apartment there, entered and told him Jenkins was outside. [Petitioner] asked Richardson to accompany him to speak with Jenkins. According to Richardson, [Petitioner] and Jenkins had an ongoing dispute over selling drugs at the apartment complex. Jenkins sold drugs from the parking lot until September 2005, when he was shot by Cory Hopkins[, who was incarcerated at the time of Jenkins's death]. Jenkins returned to the parking lot in mid-January 2006 to resume his drug selling; however, [Petitioner] and Richardson were now selling drugs there, and [Petitioner] told Jenkins that Jenkins could not do so. Matters came to a head when Jenkins returned on January 20, 2006.
Richardson also testified that he and [Petitioner] left Richardson's girlfriend's apartment and went to [Petitioner]'s mother's apartment, where they armed themselves with handguns; Richardson had a nine-millimeter handgun, while [Petitioner] had an "automatic" handgun. Richardson saw [Petitioner]'s girlfriend, Anyea Williams (Williams), in the apartment, but she did not speak to them.
Richardson and [Petitioner] left the apartment, walked to the parking lot, approached Jenkins, who was walking ahead of them toward a van that had its engine running. [Petitioner] called Jenkins, and Jenkins turned and said, "What's up?" The two men stood "a couple of steps" apart and talked for about a minute, with Richardson standing behind and very close to [Petitioner]. At that point, shots were exchanged. Richardson saw [Petitioner] shooting a black, semi-automatic handgun, and saw Jenkins fall to the ground. The gunfire continued, and Richardson began running backwards, shooting his handgun about nine times in the direction of Jenkins and the van. Initially, he did not know where the other gunshots were coming from, but concluded that they were from [Petitioner]'s handgun. He did not see Jenkins with a weapon, and did not see any gunfire coming from the van. Both he and [Petitioner] then fled the scene. Based on a conversation he had with [Petitioner] prior to his arrest, he believed that [Petitioner] was threatening to kill him if he testified against [Petitioner].
Williams was arrested on a drug charge on the evening of the shooting, and was released from jail three weeks later. She and [Petitioner] began having relationship problems, and she eventually filed a domestic violence complaint against him. She also gave the police a statement on February 28, 2006, inculpating [Petitioner] in Jenkins's murder. On July 17, 2006, she received a probationary sentence following her conviction on the drug charge in exchange for her agreement to testify against [Petitioner]. On September 25, 2007, Williams gave a videotaped statement describing threats she received about testifying against [Petitioner]. She had also received letters from [Petitioner] warning her against testifying against him.
Williams testified at trial that, between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on January 20, 2006, she was at [Petitioner]'s mother's apartment when [Petitioner] and Richardson entered. Richardson had a handgun in his waistband, and [Petitioner] went into the bedroom and retrieved a handgun that was kept there. The two men then left the apartment together and went to the parking lot. A short time later, she heard gunshots. [Petitioner] returned to the apartment and told her that he shot Jenkins after an argument "[o]ver a drug spot." [Petitioner] then left the apartment. At that point, an unknown person entered the apartment and told Williams to leave because the police were coming.
Marquis Grimsley (Grimsley) gave the police a statement on January 31, 2006, that he saw [Petitioner] standing over Jenkins and shooting him. He also gave a videotaped statement on September 20, 2007, that [Petitioner] made threats against him and his family if he testified against [Petitioner].
Grimsley had also received three letters from [Petitioner] prior to trial, two of which he discarded, but forwarded the third to another person. The third letter made its way to a detective. In that letter, [Petitioner] thanked Grimsley for saying he would not testify against [Petitioner]. [Petitioner] also asked Grimsley to complete a typewritten affidavit that accompanied the letter, which said that Grimsley had been untruthful in his January 31, 2006[,] statement, and that he had not seen [Petitioner] or anyone else shoot at Jenkins.
Contrary to his statements to the police, Grimsley testified at trial that at the time of the shooting, he was visiting his girlfriend's apartment when he looked out the kitchen window, heard gunshots, and then ducked below the window line, not observing the shooting. When he looked out the window again, he saw [Petitioner] running from the scene, but could not remember seeing anything in[Petitioner]'s hands. He also testified that [Petitioner] made no threats against him about testifying at trial.
Gregory Smith (Smith) had been arrested on May 7, 2007, on aggravated assault and weapons charges, and was housed in jail with [Petitioner]. He later entered into a plea agreement to testify against [Petitioner] in exchange for a probationary sentence. Smith testified at trial that on May 11, 2007, [Petitioner] told Smith that he had shot Jenkins, but that he wanted Smith to testify that Smith was present at the shooting and saw a "skinny guy" shoot Jenkins. [Petitioner] also offered Smith $10,000.
Smith also testified that [Petitioner] gave him written instructions and a diagram of the parking lot so that Smith could tailor his testimony to the crime
...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex