DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge.
Curtis Dionte Copeland, ("Petitioner"), presently confined at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner was charged with receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, concealing or misrepresenting identity with intent to mislead, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm. Following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court, petitioner was found guilty of the receiving and concealing charge and was acquitted of the three remaining charges.
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):
People v. Copeland, No. 311129, 2013 WL 6182646, at *1-2 (Mich.Ct.App. Nov. 26, 2013) (footnote omitted).
Id. at *2 (majority opinion) (footnote omitted).
Judge Wendy Jansen dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain petitioner's conviction:
Id. at *2-3 (Jansen, J.) (dissenting opinion).
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following ground:
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:
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, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1495. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1495.
The Court grants petitioner a writ of habeas corpus because the evidence was insufficient to convict him of receiving and concealing a motor vehicle.
It is beyond question that "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). But the critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is, "whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This inquiry, however, does not require a court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (internal citation and footnote omitted) (emphasis in the original). Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a conviction, and it is not necessary for the evidence at trial to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Johnson v. Coyle, 200 F.3d 987,
More importantly, a federal habeas court may not overturn a state court decision that rejects a sufficiency of the evidence claim simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court's resolution of that claim. Instead, a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state court decision was an objectively unreasonable application of the Jackson standard. See Cavazos v. Smith, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2, 4, 181 L.Ed.2d 311 (2011).
Under Michigan law, the elements of receiving and concealing stolen property are:
People v. Hooks, 139 Mich.App. 92, 96, 360 N.W.2d 191 (1984) (quoting People v. Matuja, 77 Mich.App. 291, 295, 258 N.W.2d 79 (1977)).
In the present case, petitioner is entitled to habeas relief, because there was insufficient evidence presented for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner received, concealed, or had actual or constructive possession of the stolen black Chevrolet Impala. The facts relied upon by the majority of the Michigan Court of Appeals in affirming petitioner's conviction may have supported a "reasonable speculation" that petitioner received, concealed or possessed this car, but these facts do not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion cannot sustain a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928, 942 (6th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Hayter Oil Co., Inc. of Greeneville, Tennessee, 51 F.3d 1265, 1271, n. 5 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Van Hee, 531 F.2d 352, 357 (6th Cir.1976)) ("`[e]vidence that at most establishes no more than a choice of reasonable probabilities cannot be said to be sufficiently substantial to sustain a criminal conviction upon appeal.'").
In Fuller v. Anderson, 662 F.2d 420, 424 (6th Cir.1981), the Sixth Circuit held that in a prosecution for felony-murder, the evidence established, at most, that the petitioner was present when another individual firebombed the house. That was held to be insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner took conscious action to aid in the commission of the underlying arson. Id. at 424. The evidence in Fuller was the petitioner had looked around while another person started the fires that caused the victim's death. Although it may have been reasonable to speculate from this evidence that petitioner acted as a lookout, a rational jury could not find it to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner aided and abetted in the offense, where there was no evidence that the petitioner intended to burn the victims' home and the evidence that he knew that this other individual planned to burn it was "simply too meager" to support his conviction.
In Hopson v. Foltz, 818 F.2d 866, (Table) 1987 WL 37432, *2 (6th Cir. May 20, 1987), the Sixth Circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus, finding that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner participated as an aider and abettor in the murder for which he was convicted.
In Brown v. Palmer, 441 F.3d 347, 352 (6th Cir.2006), the Sixth Circuit indicated that although Fuller and Hopson were pre-AEDPA [Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act] cases, "[t]heir holdings that distinguish reasonable speculation from sufficient evidence are still persuasive in establishing that the state court's application of federal constitutional law as set forth in Jackson, was objectively unreasonable."
In the present case, without impermissibly stacking inferences, there is insufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude that petitioner received, concealed, stole, or possessed the black Chevrolet Impala. See Kelly v. Roberts, 998 F.2d 802, 808-09 (10th Cir.1993). "[A]lthough a jury may infer facts from other facts that are established by inference, each link in the chain of inferences must be sufficiently strong to avoid a lapse into speculation." Piaskowski v. Bett, 256 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir.2001). In this case, the chain of inferences that the prosecution attempted to forge fails in many places. Id.
The only evidence relied upon by the majority of the Michigan Court of Appeals and by the Attorney General in the answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus to support petitioner's conviction is the fact that he went with Tierra Hinton to purchase the white Chevrolet Impala from which the VIN plate was removed and later placed on the stolen black Impala and that the stolen black Impala was parked in front of a residence that petitioner may have frequented. However, as Judge Jansen indicated in her dissenting opinion, there was no evidence which showed that petitioner played any part in removing the VIN plate from the white Impala or placed it on the stolen black Impala. There was no evidence proving that petitioner ever received, concealed, stole, drove, or was otherwise in actual possession of the black Impala. Petitioner's fingerprints were not recovered from this vehicle, nor was any paperwork or documentation bearing petitioner's name located in the black Impala. The evidence tended to suggest that Tierra Hinton lived in the residence on Joseph Campau Street. Hinton and her small child were present when the police searched the residence. Hinton was also present with petitioner at the time the white Impala was purchased. The sales receipt for the white Impala was made out to Hinton and this vehicle was registered in her name. "In short, there was significantly more admissible evidence tying Hinton to the falsified VIN and stolen Impala than there was tying defendant to the VIN and stolen vehicle." Copeland, No. 311129, 2013 WL 6182646, at *2 (Jansen, J.) (dissenting opinion).
"Although circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction, there are times that it amounts to only a reasonable speculation and not to sufficient evidence." Newman v. Metrish, 543 F.3d 793, 796 (6th Cir.2008). In this case, the "meager circumstantial evidence" is simply too innocuous to convict petitioner of this crime, particularly since much of it is "conjecture camouflaged as evidence." Piaskowski, 256 F.3d at 693. While the evidence may have lead to a reasonable speculation that petitioner may have had some involvement
The Michigan Court of Appeals' conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to convict petitioner is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Jackson v. Virginia. The decision is also an unreasonable determination of the facts. Judge Jansen's sharp dissent in this case offers a compelling and persuasive argument that the majority's conclusion was unreasonable, justifying habeas relief for petitioner. See Rockwell v. Yukins, 341 F.3d 507, 516-17 (6th Cir.2003) (Clay, J., dissenting). Petitioner is therefore entitled to habeas relief.
Because the Court finds that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof, the appropriate remedy is to issue a writ of habeas corpus outright, rather than conditioning the grant of the writ on the state's failure to retry the petitioner. See Brown v. Palmer, 358 F.Supp.2d 648, 656 (E.D.Mich.2005).
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby granted with respect to petitioner's insufficiency of evidence claim and the Court orders that petitioner's conviction for receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle and being an habitual offender be vacated or set aside. Because petitioner has been incarcerated for almost three years for a crime that the State of Michigan failed to prove, this Court will order that petitioner shall be released immediately from incarceration. See Kelly, 998 F.2d at 809, n. 11; Brown, 358 F.Supp.2d at 656.
