United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY, DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
THE NOTICE RE: WARNING PERSISTENT FAILURE TO PERFORM JUDICIAL
DUTIES, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
HONORABLE MARK A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Santell Longmire, (“Petitioner”), confined at the
Alger Correctional Facility in Munising, Michigan, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. In his pro se application, Petitioner
challenges his convictions for armed robbery, MCL §
750.529, felon in possession of a firearm, MCL §
750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission
of a felony, MCL § 750.227b. The trial court sentenced
Petitioner to concurrent prison terms of 15 to 25 years for
the armed robbery conviction, and 1 to 5 years for the felon
in possession conviction, to be served consecutive to a
two-year term of imprisonment for the felony-firearm
conviction. For the reasons stated below, the petition for a
writ of habeas corpus is denied.
was convicted following a jury trial in the Wayne County
Circuit Court. This Court recites verbatim the relevant facts
relied upon 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):
Defendant's convictions arose from the robbery of a
Burger King restaurant in Detroit. The prosecution presented
the testimony of three of the four Burger King employees who
were present at the time of the robbery. According to the
testimony, two men, one wearing a striped shirt and one
wearing a white t-shirt, entered the restaurant. The man
wearing the t-shirt placed an order and gave the shift
manager and cashier, RR, a $5 bill. When RR opened the
register, the man wearing the striped shirt, later identified
as defendant, produced a handgun and pointed it at RR. As RR
pleaded with defendant not to shoot, defendant took money
from the register. Two other employees, SS and TR, observed
defendant from their respective vantage points in the
restaurant and, after defendant left the store, SS and TR
again observed him in the parking lot. SS and TR each
identified defendant at both a live lineup and at trial. The
defense theory at trial was that defendant had been
misidentified as the robber.
People v. Longmire, No. 312071, 2014 WL 3547133, at
*1 (Mich. Ct. App. July 17, 2014).
raised the following claims before the Michigan Court of
1. Pretrial waiver of counsel was not unequivocal, requiring
a new trial.
2. Trial court failed to suppress identification testimony of
in his Standard 4 Brief raised the following additional
1. False Confession.
2. Complete failure to allow Petitioner to view such evidence
by the trial court.
3. False/fabricated evidence was provided by Ms. Sutton,
violating due process rights.
4. Disregarding Ms. Sutton's original description of the
culprit was an abuse of discretion.
5. Officer-in-charge provided perjured testimony at and after
the Wade hearing.
6. Officer-in-charge provided perjured testimony in
connection with material issues.
7. Warrant was based on witness' conclusions rather than
8. The People failed to show a substantial basis of
credibility of the confidential informant in obtaining a
9. Failure to conduct the legal proceedings in accordance
within the governing rules.
10. No probable cause at the time of the arrest or at the
time of the issuance of the warrant.
raised the following claims before the Michigan Supreme
1. Pretrial waiver of counsel was not unequivocal.
2. Violation of due process by charges brought on the basis
of false evidence.
3. Officer-in-charge falsified a police report and supplied
perjured testimony at trial.
4. Lack of probable cause for arrest.
conviction was affirmed on appeal, Id., leave
denied 497 Mich. 972, 859 N.W.2d 695 (Mich. 2015).
21, 2015, Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for
relief from judgment, No. 11-011861-01-FC (Dkt. 8-18),
containing the following claims:
1. A Brady violation: that prosecution withheld
witness statement of the identifying witness, see Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
2. Newly discovered evidence that Petitioner's arrest was
illegal and that the evidence came from the fruit of the
3. A jurisdictional defect: that Petitioner was arraigned on
baseless charges with no probable cause
4. Deprivation of self-representation.
trial court denied this motion. People v. Longmire,
No. 11-011861-01-FC (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct. Aug. 21, 2015) (Dkt.
8-19). The Michigan appellate courts then denied Petitioner
leave to appeal from this motion. People v.
Longmire, No. 331397 (Mich. Ct. App. June 2, 2016) (Dkt.
8-21); leave denied 500 Mich. 899, 887 N.W.2d 425
seeks habeas relief on the following grounds:
1. Petitioner was denied due process by improper
“fabricated identification procedures.”
2. Petitioner was improperly denied his right to
3. New evidence shows a Fourth Amendment violation with
4. Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
5. Petitioner's sentence is invalid.