United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, (2) A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND (3)
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
D. BORMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas case filed by a Michigan prisoner under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner Starr Kiogima was convicted after a
jury trial held in the Eaton County Circuit Court of
second-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Law § 750.317, and
operating a motor vehicle under the influence (OUIL) causing
death, Mich. Comp. Law § 257.625(4). Petitioner was
sentenced to 25-50 years' incarceration for the
second-degree murder conviction and 10-15 years for the OUIL.
petition raises a single claim, that insufficient evidence
was presented at trial to demonstrate the second-degree
murder element of “malice.” As explained further
below, the Court will deny the petition because the claim
does not satisfy the strict standards for habeas corpus
Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the facts of
Petitioner's case as follows:
This case arises from a fatal crash that occurred on I-96 on
the afternoon of September 11, 2013. As defendant attempted
to enter the highway, she drove her vehicle across some grass
and crashed into a vehicle driven by Raymond Anderson.
Anderson's vehicle was pushed across the lanes of traffic
into a guardrail. Defendant's vehicle rolled over several
times and defendant's four-year old daughter was ejected
from the car. Attempts by passersby to resuscitate the child
proved unsuccessful. Defendant was intoxicated at the time of
the accident, and tests also showed the presence of
controlled substances in her blood
People v. Kiogima, No. 326159, 2016 WL 4007873, at
*1 (Mich. Ct. App. July 26, 2016).
direct appeal, Petitioner alleged error on bindover from the
district court, ineffective assistance of counsel, and
insufficient evidence to establish the element of the
second-degree murder element of “malice.” A
divided Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's
conviction. Id. The Michigan Supreme Court denied
leave to appeal in a standard form order. People v.
Kiogima, 500 Mich. 997 (2017).
timely filed petition brought pro se, Petitioner raises only
the single issue of insufficiency of evidence of malice.
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;
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented