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.

Nettles v. Palmer

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

October 17, 2017

CASSALLE LEROY NETTLES, Petitioner,
v.
CARMEN PALMER, Respondent.

          ORDER DISMISSING THE HABEAS PETITION AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Petitioner Cassalle Leroy Nettles has filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges Petitioner's Oakland County convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, and two firearm offenses. Petitioner's ground for relief alleges that prejudicial evidence concerning other acts was admitted against him at trial. The Court has determined that this claim is procedurally defaulted. Therefore, the petition will be dismissed.

         I. Background

         The charges against Petitioner arose from the fatal shooting of Duraid Lossia during a robbery at a party store in Farmington Hills, Michigan. At Petitioner's jury trial in Oakland County Circuit Court,

[t]he prosecution presented substantial evidence, including [Petitioner's] own statement, that placed [him] in the store at the time of the robbery. Indeed, the timeline evidence established by testimony from customers who observed [Petitioner] and were in the store either shortly before and shortly after the shooting, and the electronic evidence of the times of their purchases, supported an inference that [Petitioner] was the only person in the store at that time. While no gun was recovered, the police did recover a holster at [Petitioner's] home. Although [Petitioner] told the police that he just happened to be in the store at the time other assailants entered the store and robbed and shot the owner, no one else was seen by other customers, or caught on camera, during the narrow timeframe the robbery could have been committed. . . . The prosecution also presented evidence that [Petitioner] had parked his vehicle at a distant location from the store and then walked to the store, which is inconsistent with his purported reason for being there. In addition, the clothing [Petitioner] wore into the store at the time of the incident disappeared, [his] story changed several times during his police interview, and the prosecution presented evidence that [Petitioner] had attempted to establish a false alibi.

People v. Nettles, No. 324408, 2016 WL 1125931, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2016).

         The jury found Petitioner guilty of first-degree (felony) murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316(1)(b), armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529, felon in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f, and three counts of felony firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. On October 20, 2014, the trial court sentenced Petitioner as a habitual offender to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the murder, thirty-seven to sixty years for the armed robbery, and seventy-six months to fifty years for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court sentenced Petitioner to a consecutive sentence of two years in prison for the felony-firearm convictions.

         In an appeal as of right, Petitioner raised claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial, the admission of “other acts” evidence, the prosecutor's closing argument, and trial counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's conduct. The Michigan Court of Appeals found no merit in Petitioner's claims and affirmed his convictions in an unpublished, per curiam decision on March 22, 2016. See Nettles, 2016 WL 1125931. Petitioner did not seek further review of his convictions in state court, and, under Michigan Court R. 7.305(C)(2), he had only fifty-six days, or until May 17, 2016, to file an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court.

         On May 15, 2017, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition through counsel. His sole ground for relief is that the admission of minimally probative, but exceedingly prejudicial, “other acts” evidence deprived him of a fair trial.

         On June 21, 2017, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed on the basis that his ground for relief is unexhausted or procedurally defaulted. In a response to the Court's order, Petitioner argues that his claim is not procedurally defaulted and that his petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies because he raised his claim in the Michigan Court of Appeals and has no state remedy left to seek.

         II. Discussion

         The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to present their claims to the state courts before raising the claims in a federal habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 839 (1999). This requirement is satisfied if the prisoner “invok[es] one complete round of the State's established appellate review process, ” including a petition for discretionary review in the state supreme court “when that review is part of the ordinary appellate review procedure in the State.” O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845, 847. Thus, to properly exhaust state remedies, prisoners must fairly present the factual and legal basis for each of their claims to the state court of appeals and to the state supreme court before raising the claims in a habeas corpus petition. Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 414-15 (6th Cir. 2009).

         Petitioner admits that he did not seek leave to appeal his convictions in the Michigan Supreme Court. See Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 9(g) and 10. Therefore, he has not exhausted state remedies for his claim by raising the claim in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.

         The exhaustion requirement, however, “refers only to remedies still available at the time of the federal petition, ” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 125 n. 28 (1982), and, as noted above, Petitioner missed the deadline for filing an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. Therefore, his claim must be treated as exhausted, but procedurally defaulted, unless he can demonstrate cause and prejudice for the ...


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.