United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court
state prisoner William Crump filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner
challenges his convictions for three counts of third-degree
criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.520d(1)(a) (victim at least 13 years old and under 16
years old); three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual
conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520e(1)(a) (victim at
least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age and actor
more than five years older than the victim), and one count of
accosting a child for an immoral purpose, Mich. Comp. Laws
§ 750.145a. He raises two claims for relief. Respondent
argues that several of the claims are meritless. For the
reasons stated, the Court denies the petition and denies a
certificate of appealability.
convictions arise from his sexual conduct with three girls,
Neonie O., Shyya H., and Shadivia P. Shadivia testified that,
in 2011, she ran away from a home for troubled youth, Vista
Maria. Shadivia was fifteen-years old at the time. Two other
girls, Shyya and Neonie, ran away with her. Shadivia, Neonie,
and another girl known as Desi went to Petitioner’s
home. Shadivia stayed at the home for about one to two
months. She did not pay any rent. Occasionally, Petitioner
asked Shadivia to have sex with him to pay for her room. She
did not have sex with him, but he touched her breasts and
buttocks numerous times without her consent. She also saw
Petitioner touch Neonie in the same ways he had touched her.
Shadivia testified that when Child Protective Services first
questioned her she denied that Petitioner had touched her
inappropriately because she was embarrassed and did not want
the situation to escalate.
testified that, in May 2011, she was fifteen-years-old. She
left Vista Maria in early 2011 and went to Petitioner’s
home, where she stayed for approximately three months.
Several times, while staying at Petitioner’s home, she
awoke to find him touching her leg and thigh, and trying to
touch her private area. Petitioner suggested to her several
times that she could have sex with him in lieu of paying
rent. One day, she was standing in the bathroom when he
entered, pulled her panties aside, and licked her vagina.
testified that she too stayed at Petitioner’s home
after running away from Vista Maria. She was
thirteen-years-old at the time. On one occasion, she asked
Petitioner to rub her back while they were watching TV.
Another girl, Arizona Adams, was present in the room. After
rubbing her back for a while, Petitioner placed his fingers
in her vagina. Arizona left the room. Petitioner then
penetrated her vagina with his penis.
Adams testified that she stayed at Petitioner’s home
for about a week at the same time that Shyya stayed there in
2011. Adams did not feel threatened while at the home and
testified that Petitioner never touched her inappropriately.
One day she saw Petitioner and Shyya having intercourse.
did not testify in his own defense and presented no
a jury trial in Wayne County Circuit Court, Petitioner was
convicted of three counts of third-degree criminal sexual
conduct, three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual
conduct, and one count of accosting a child for an immoral
purpose. Petitioner was sentenced as a fourth habitual
offender to concurrent sentences of 25 to 42 years for
third-degree CSC convictions, 1 to 2 years for the
fourth-degree CSC convictions, and 2 to 15 years for the
accosting a child for immoral purposes conviction.
filed an appeal of right in the Michigan Court of Appeals,
raising these claims: (i) counsel was ineffective during plea
negotiations; (ii) trial court improperly left Petitioner
handcuffed during trial; and (iii) counsel was ineffective
for failing to object to trial court’s decision to
leave Petitioner handcuffed during trial. The Michigan Court
of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions.
People v. Crump, No. 316583, 2014 WL 7157385 (Mich.
Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2014). The Michigan Supreme Court denied
leave to appeal. People v. Crump, 498 Mich. 872
(Mich. Sept. 9, 2015).
then filed a habeas corpus petition. The petition raises
I. Mr. Crump is entitled to a new trial or the reinstatement
of the final plea offer because his defense attorney provided
constitutionally inadequate assistance under the Sixth and
II. A new trial is warranted because the trial judge had Mr.
Crump shackled prior to ever meeting him or his entering into
that court room, where no record evidence exist[ed] of
disruptive behavior, which is cruel and unusual punishment
under the Sixth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment.
Standard of Review
of this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under the
AEDPA, a state prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas
corpus only if he can show ...