Russell v. Storey

1

ALPHONSO RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. BARBRA STOREY, Respondent.

No. 2:23-cv-116

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

August 21, 2024

OPINION

HONORABLE ROBERT J. JONKER, JUDGE

This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Alphonso Russell is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. On April 26, 2018 following a three-day jury trial in the Ingham County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), in violation of Mich. Comp Laws § 750.520b, one count of unlawful imprisonment, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.349b, one count of assault by strangulation, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.841b, and one count of domestic violence, third offense, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.814. On July 25, 2018, the court sentenced Petitioner as a third-habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of 25 to 50 years for CSC-I, 20 to 30 years for unlawful imprisonment, 13 years, 4 months to 20 years for assault by strangulation, and 6 years, 8 months to 10 years for domestic violence, third offense.

On June 16, 2023, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition raising ten grounds for relief, as follows:

I. Mr. Russell's Due Process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment[s] of the United States Constitution [were] violated where the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict or alternatively defendant is entitled to a new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.

II. Defendant's conviction must be vacated where his trial counsel did not provide effective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when he failed to call witnesses to corroborate defendant's anticipated testimony or to impeach the complainant's testimony.

III. Mr. Russell was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments when his trial counsel did not impeach the complaining witness with prior evidence, statements made to police or sworn testimony where the credibility of the witness was critical to the outcome of the trial.

IV. Mr. Russell was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment when his trial counsel did not obtain evidence from Mr. Russell's cell phone which was seized and copied by the police and the phone contained photographs and texts that would have undermined the testimony of the complainant.

V. Defendant's right to due process was violated and his convictions must be vacated because there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions or grant a new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.

VI. Mr. Russell was denied his rights to due process and a fair trial as a result of the complainant [being] allowed to present false statements and the prosecution[‘]s eliciting false testimony, which prejudiced Mr. Russell.

VII. Defendant was denied his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial as a result of the complainant's testimony not being corrob[o]rated in order to sustain his conviction.

VIII. Mr. Russell's rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated when the complainant was allowed to leave the trial when the Defense wasn't done confronting the witness.

IX. The trial court abused [its] discretion when it denied Mr. Russell his right to a speedy trial, depriving Mr Russell of his due process fundamental right to a fair trial, prohibitting [sic] the right to equal protection under the laws and failing to adjudicate the claims that [were] brought forth to the court, upholding the deprivation of liberties under the United States constitution 5th, 6th, 8th, [and] 14th Amendment[s].

X. Appell[ate] counsel was ineffective for failing to present and articulate a required defense allowing injustice to be exposed, and failing to challenge defense counsel's “strategy,” and the misconduct of the prosecution's exploitation of the given trial testimony, which is a violation of the United States Constitution 5th, 6th, 8th, [and] 14th Amendment[s].

(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.11-61.)

Respondent has filed an answer to the petition (ECF No. 19) stating that the grounds should be denied because they are not exhausted, are procedurally defaulted, and are meritless. Upon review and applying the standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA), the Court agrees and will deny the petition. The Court will further deny Petitioner's motion to supplement his habeas petition (ECF No. 25), and four motions to supplement or amend Petitioner's reply brief (ECF Nos. 24, 27, 28, 29).

Discussion

I. Factual Allegations and Relevant Procedural History

On April 26, 2018, following a three-day jury trial in the Ingham County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of two counts CSC-I, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b, one count of unlawful imprisonment, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.349b, one count of assault by strangulation, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.841b, and one count of domestic violence, third offense, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.814. On July 25, 2018, the court sentenced Petitioner as a third-habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of 25 to 50 years for CSC-I, 20 to 30 years for unlawful imprisonment, 13 years, 4 months to 20 years for assault by strangulation, and 6 years, 8 months to 10 years for domestic violence, third offense.

The Michigan Court of Appeals described the facts underlying Petitioner's convictions as follows:

On March 27, 2017, CR, the victim, moved into the Village Inn Motel with defendant after being introduced to him by her aunt. CR testified concerning the events that took place inside the motel room between March 27, 2017 and April 10, 2017.

CR testified that the first few days were “great,” but things changed later that week. CR initially had consensual sexual intercourse with defendant. Later that week, defendant told her that a few of his friends needed to be with her sexually. CR testified that defendant's friends examined her body when they came to the motel room, and that defendant strangled her because she did not want to have sexual intercourse with defendant's friends. CR testified that defendant was on top of her and wrapped his hands around her neck until she could not breathe. When she awoke, she was naked and defendant told her to “get ready,” and then two of defendant's friends had sexual intercourse with her while defendant watched. CR testified that defendant choked and beat her if she disobeyed defendant and that he threatened to choke her.

CR testified that defendant and his friend had nonconsensual sex with her. CR told defendant “no” and “stop,” and she tried to get up, but defendant pushed her down and told her to “shut up” and “hold still.” In another instance, a few of defendant's friends held her down and had vaginal, anal, and oral sex with her. CR tried to fight off the men; however, defendant rubbed a gun down the side of her face and told her to be a “big girl” and to do what the men wanted. CR testified that her right shoulder was injured as a result of being held down.

CR testified that defendant had nonconsensual vaginal and anal sex with her on approximately April 8, 2017. CR told defendant that she wanted to go home and that she did not want to be in a relationship with him. In response, defendant shoved, pushed, and choked CR. CR thought defendant would have killed her if she fought back and that defendant told her that the only way she was going to leave was in a body bag.

CR's sister, LV, testified that CR was scared and not safe at the motel, and that CR sent her a message that indicated CR was not safe. CR's other sister, JR, testified that CR appeared to be afraid and depressed while living in the motel, which led JR to call the police.

Ingham County Sheriff Deputy William Lo contacted and interviewed CR on April 10, 2017. CR was terrified and crying, and gave Deputy Lo her account of the events that took place at the hotel during the interview. Deputy Lo noted that CR's timing was “off”; however, he testified that it was not uncommon for a victim like CR to lose their frame of reference.

CR was examined by a SANE nurse, who observed that CR had bruising to her neck, back, and chest, an abrasion on her chest and abdomen, and an injury and bruise on her left leg. CR also had a laceration with bruising in her anal area. The nurse collected DNA evidence during the examination. The DNA evidence was analyzed and there was very strong support that defendant contributed to the DNA found on the vaginal, anal, and neck swabs collected from CR. An expert in strangulation and forensic nursing testified that CR's symptoms and injuries were consistent with strangulation.

Defendant testified that he and CR engaged in consensual sex and that they did not have sex with other men. He testified that some of his friends stopped by the motel to take him to work, but that they did not have sex with CR. Defendant denied being violent and strangling CR or being aggressive toward her. Defendant testified that he did not see any injuries on CR when he left for work on April 10, 2017; however, he admitted that CR had one “passion mark” on the back of her neck from him. Regarding CR's bruises and marks on her back, defendant testified that they were “passion marks” and that he had never hit CR.

People v. Russell, No. 344890, 2020 WL...