LAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge.
Petitioner Dantrell Conerly was sitting in a car waiting in a McDonald's drive-thru line as Marcus Payne approached. Payne was behaving erratically, and an argument ensued. Eventually, Conerly shot and killed him. A Genesee Circuit Court jury convicted Conerly of second-degree murder, carrying a concealed weapon, receiving and concealing a stolen firearm, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to a total of 32 to 52 years' imprisonment. Conerly filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for receiving and concealing a stolen firearm. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the petition.
By way of background, the Michigan Court of Appeals described the incident leading to Conerly's conviction as follows:
People v. Conerly, No. 318164, 2014 WL 6089505, at *1-2 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2014) (per curiam) (paragraphing altered).
Following his conviction, Conerly appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising two claims: (1) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not request (or object to the lack of) an instruction expressly explaining that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for receiving and concealing a stolen firearm. (R. 9-17, PID 1207.) The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Conerly's convictions in an explained decision. See Conerly, 2014 WL 6089505.
Conerly raised the same two claims in an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. (R. 9-18, PID 1251-52.) But the Michigan Supreme Court denied the application in a summary order because it was "not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed." People v. Conerly, 866 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. 2015).
Conerly filed his federal habeas petition in September 2016, raising the same two claims. He has not sought state-court post-conviction relief or petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari.
As will be discussed, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided both of Conerly's claims "on the merits," so this Court's standard of review stems from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which prohibits this Court from granting habeas corpus relief unless the adjudication "(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." See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Conerly first claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request an instruction specifically addressing the burden of proof for self-defense.
"An ineffective assistance claim has two components: A petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).
The Michigan Court of Appeals considered both prongs of the Strickland test "on the merits." Under the first prong, the court sided with Conerly, finding that his counsel performed unreasonably:
Conerly, 2014 WL 6089505, at *3 (footnote omitted).
But the court rejected Conerly's claim under the prejudice prong:
Conerly, 2014 WL 6089505, at *4 (footnote citations omitted).
This decision was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law. To satisfy the prejudice prong, a defendant must show that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. A reasonable probability is one that is "sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id.
True, the jury was never instructed expressly that the prosecution had to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. But that proposition was implicit in, and logically followed from, several other instructions. See, e.g., Seaman v. Washington, 506 F. App'x 349, 361 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting in the context of a Strickland prejudice analysis, "A challenge to a jury instruction may not be judged in `artificial isolation' but must be considered `in the context of the instructions and the trial record as a whole.'" (citation omitted)). At several points, the trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution had the burden to prove each element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. (R. 9-14, PID 1138-39, 1148-49.) The trial court also instructed the jury that one of the elements of second-degree murder (and first-degree murder) that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that "the killing was not just justified, excused or done under circumstances that reduced it to a lesser crime." (R. 9-14, PID 1149-50.) Finally, the trial court instructed that "[i]f a person acts in lawful self-defense, that person's actions are justified and he is not guilty of First Degree Murder or Second Degree Murder." (R. 9-14, PID 1151.)
Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions. Bales v. Bell, 788 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2015). Making that presumption here, the jury necessarily placed on the prosecution the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense. The jury was instructed that the prosecution had to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, that one element of the offense was the absence of justification, and that one form of justification was self-defense. So the omission of an instruction specifically stating that the prosecution had to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt was not prejudicial. Simply put, as the Michigan Court of Appeals reasonably concluded, "Had the jury believed that Conerly acted in self-defense, it would have acquitted him." Conerly, 2014 WL 6089505, at *4.
Accordingly, habeas corpus relief is not warranted for this claim.
Conerly next claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that the firearm he used to shoot Payne was stolen.
To assess a sufficiency of evidence claim, "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." Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). "The Jackson v. Virginia standard `gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.'" Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319). The standard "is so demanding that `[a] defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction faces a nearly insurmountable hurdle.'" Id. at 534 (quoting United States v. Oros, 578 F.3d 703, 710 (7th Cir. 2009)). "Adding to this extremely high bar are the stringent and limiting standards of AEDPA," which allows a federal habeas court to disrupt "a state court's decision that correctly identified and applied the controlling Supreme Court precedent only if the application of that precedent was objectively unreasonable, meaning more than incorrect or erroneous." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Jackson standard "is applied `with explicit reference to the substantive elements of the criminal offense as defined by state law,'" so the Court will look to Michigan law. Id. at 531 (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324 n.16).
Michigan law makes it a felony to receive or conceal a stolen firearm. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.535b(2). A conviction for that offense requires proof that the defendant "(1) received [or] concealed . . . (2) a stolen firearm . . . (3) knowing that the firearm . . . was stolen." People v. Nutt, 677 N.W.2d 1, 16 (Mich. 2004).
The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Conerly's claim on the merits as follows:
Conerly, 2014 WL 6089505, at *2-3 (footnote citations omitted).
This decision was not unreasonable. Conerly bought the gun from a friend at the friend's house around a month before he used it to kill Payne. (R. 9-13, PID 1006, 1022.) Conerly paid $200 cash and did not get a receipt, because, in his words at trial, the weapon was "[b]ought off the street." (R. 9-13, PID 1023.) After buying the weapon, he failed to register it even though he knew he was required to do so. (R. 9-13, PID 1024.) When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this circumstantial evidence supported the Michigan Court of Appeals' conclusion that the jury could have reasonably found that Conerly knew the weapon was stolen. Thus, habeas relief is not warranted for this claim.
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Conerly is not entitled to federal habeas relief on the claims contained in his petition. Accordingly, the Court DENIES and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In order to appeal the Court's decision, Conerly must obtain a certificate of appealability. To obtain a certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate this denial, the applicant is required to show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A federal district court may grant or deny a certificate of appealability when the court issues a ruling on the habeas petition. Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901-02 (6th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
Here, reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the Court's rulings on Conerly's habeas claims, which are devoid of merit for the reasons explained. Thus, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Court also DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Finally, along with his reply brief, Conerly filed a motion to amend. (R. 11.) It appears that he believed he needed leave of the Court to file his reply brief as a supplement to the briefing offered with his petition. As the Court considered Conerly's arguments in his reply brief, the motion to amend is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
