United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PATRICIA T. MORRIS MAG. JUDGE.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Carlos White (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the
Muskegon Correctional Facility in Muskegon, Michigan, filed a
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for
carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a; armed robbery,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529; receiving and concealing
stolen property, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.535(7); and
felony-firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. For the
reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus
was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne County
Circuit Court, in which he was tried jointly with
co-defendant Antonio Carlos Hubbard. This Court recites
verbatim the relevant facts relied on 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):
This case arises from multiple criminal acts that occurred
throughout Detroit, Michigan, over the course of two days.
First, two men armed with a pistol carjacked a victim in
northwest Detroit, taking her Chrysler Sebring as well as her
cellular phone. Another car was stolen on the eastside of
Detroit shortly thereafter. Subsequently, a third carjacking
was attempted, which appeared to be related to the other two
incidents. Police officers later observed both stolen
vehicles at a Detroit apartment complex, and defendant was
seen with both cars. Police arrested defendant and another
suspect soon afterward.
The next evening, the victim of the first carjacking and cell
phone robbery participated in a live lineup at the Detroit
Detention Center. She positively identified defendant as the
man who held a gun to her head while taking her Sebring, but
she also identified two other
“fillers” as being possibilities for the second
On June 20, 2014, defendant's trial counsel filed a
motion to compel discovery of evidence related to the
victim's identification of defendant in the live lineup.
In the alternative, defendant requested the exclusion of the
victim's identification of defendant in the live lineup
and her identification of him at the preliminary examination,
arguing that the evidence was tainted because the lineup was
unduly suggestive. The trial court scheduled a hearing on
defendant's motion on July 18, 2014, during which
witnesses were to testify regarding the lineup, but defense
counsel failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Due to
counsel's absence, the trial court dismissed the motion.
Defense counsel subsequently refiled the motion, but the
trial court did not receive notice of his intent to refile
early enough to reschedule a hearing on August 1, 2014, as
the defense had requested.
On August 4, 2014, the first day of the jury trial, the trial
court refused to consider defendant's refiled motion,
stating that it would have been unable to hold a hearing on
the motion on August 1 due to the lack of notice and
concluding that it would not have an opportunity to rule on
the pretrial motion before the trial began. However, it also
noted that identification is always an issue at trial. The
jury convicted defendant on all charges.
People v. White, No. 323465, 2016 WL 370033, at * 1
(Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).
conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id., lv. den. 500
Mich. 887, 886 N.W.2d 639 (2016).
seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following ground:
is entitled to a new trial where he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel.
Standard of Review
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:
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 ...