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.

Stroud v. Brewer

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

July 13, 2018

MIAH STROUD, #936182, Petitioner,
v.
SHAWN BREWER, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

          John Corbett O'Meara, United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Miah Stroud (“petitioner”) asserts that she is being held in violation of her constitutional rights. The petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and three counts of felonious assault following a joint jury trial with co-defendant Tamarris Aldridge in the Wayne County Circuit Court and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 to 40 years imprisonment on the murder conviction and two to four years imprisonment on each of the assault convictions in 2014. In her pro se pleadings, she raises claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the pre-trial identification procedures, and the exclusion of defense expert witness testimony. The respondent has filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied. For the reasons set forth, the Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

         II. Facts and Procedural History

         The petitioner's conviction arises from the shooting death of a man and an assault upon other individuals at a home in Detroit, Michigan on August 10, 2013. The Michigan Court of Appeals described the relevant facts, which are presumed correct on habeas review, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009), as follows:

Defendants' convictions arise out of the shooting death of Antoine Holley, Sr., at his home in Detroit, in front of his girlfriend, Latasha Bargaineer, their son, Antoine Holley, Jr. (Holley Jr.), and Antoine's father, Terrell Johnson.
***
Latasha and Antoine had been in an “on and off” relationship for almost three years. They resided together with their son, Holley Jr., and Antoine's father, Terrell. In July of 2013, one of Miah's half-sisters, Candy Simpson, moved into their residence and worked for Antoine as a prostitute. The living situation was highly unstable, and Latasha fought with both Candy and Antoine, even at one point pouring lighter fluid on the latter. On August 10, 2013, Antoine physically assaulted Candy and ordered her to leave. The next day in the early afternoon, a group of people, which included Miah; another half-sister of both Miah and Candy, Joezetta Harper; and Tamarris, came to Antoine's house. They demanded to know Candy's whereabouts and were upset about her getting “jumped on.” Latasha and Terrell both noticed at the time that one of the sisters, who they identified at trial as Miah, looked more like Candy than the other; and a man, who they identified at trial as Tamarris, had a readily apparent glass eye. The group left after being told that Candy was not present.
Later that night, Johnson heard a knock at the door to the house and saw a person he identified as Miah, who he recognized as the person who looked like Candy from earlier that day, outside, apparently alone; she asked for Candy and, when Johnson informed her that Candy was not present, she asked for Antoine. Antoine came to the door and let Miah in, whereupon several men, one of whom Johnson immediately recognized as Tamarris, the man with the glass eye from earlier in the day, rushed in behind Miah. Two of the men, including Tamarris, were armed with guns. Miah went upstairs and confronted Latasha in a bedroom, stating she was looking for Candy, but Tamarris joined her and they escorted Latasha and Holley Jr. downstairs at gunpoint. Latasha also recognized Miah and Tamarris as Candy's sister and the man with the glass eye from earlier. Antoine and Terrell were on the floor, where the other man with a gun began “stomping” on Antoine. One of the men, believed to be the unidentified man with the handgun, then shot Antoine in the head. The intruders then left the house.

People v. Stroud, No. 322812, 2016 WL 901333, *1 (Mich. Ct. App. March 8, 2016) (unpublished joint appeal) (text and footnotes omitted).

         Following her convictions and sentencing, the petitioner filed an appeal of right with the Michigan Court of Appeals raising claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the pre-trial identification procedures, and the exclusion of defense expert witness testimony. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied relief on those claims and affirmed her convictions. Id. at *2-5. The petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People v. Stroud, 500 Mich. 867, 885 N.W.2d 286 (2016).

         The petitioner thereafter filed her federal habeas petition raising the same claims presented to the state courts on direct appeal. The respondent has filed an answer to the petition contending that it should be denied because the claims lack merit. The petitioner has filed a reply to that answer.

         III. Standard of Review

         The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., sets forth the standard of review that federal courts must use when considering habeas petitions brought by prisoners challenging their state court convictions. The AEDPA provides in relevant part:

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.

28 U.S.C. §2254(d) (1996).

         “A state court's decision is ‘contrary to' . . . clearly established law if it ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court cases]' or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [that] precedent.'” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16 (2003) ...


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.