Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mann v. Hoffner

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

October 10, 2017

DARRELL MANN, Petitioner,
v.
BONITA HOFFNER, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1, 15] AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

         Before the Court is Petitioner Darrell Mann's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions for three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(b), and one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520e(1)(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the petition.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Mann, Case No. 308706, 2013 WL 2278136 (Mich. Ct. App. May 23, 2013). The Michigan Court of Appeals relied on the following facts that the Court presumes are accurate:[1]

On July 19, 2011, the victim was walking toward a bus stop when defendant offered to give her a ride. The victim got in defendant's truck and, after they negotiated a price for oral sex, defendant drove to a parking lot. After defendant stopped the vehicle, he grabbed the victim's neck with both hands and told her he did not have any money, but to do what he said and he would not hurt her. After defendant forced the victim to perform oral sex, he penetrated her with his fingers and then his penis while she cried and asked him to stop. Eventually, defendant let the victim out of his truck and, after securing defendant's license plate number, she sought medical treatment. Prior to defendant's trial and pursuant to MRE 404(b), the prosecutor moved for the admission of evidence related to defendant's 1989 first-degree CSC conviction and the motion was granted.

Id. at *1.

         Petitioner then filed his petition, which the Court held in abeyance to permit Petitioner to return to the state courts to present additional claims. ECF 12. Petitioner's state court actions failed, so the Court reopened the case and allowed Petitioner to file an amended habeas petition. ECF 16. In his original and amended petitions, Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the following grounds: (1) Petitioner was denied a fair trial by the introduction of prejudicial bad acts evidence, (2) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         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:

         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.

         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 (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. 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 411. "A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). To obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.