United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
EDWARD V. WYNN, Petitioner,
SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION SEEKING
THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILIY [ECF NO.
F. Cox, U.S. District Judge.
Edward V. Wynn has appealed the Court's opinion and
judgment denying his pro se petition for the writ of
habeas corpus. The habeas petition challenged
Petitioner's Michigan convictions for one count of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.520b(1)(c), and one count of unlawful imprisonment, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.349b(1)(c). Petitioner argued in his
habeas petition that: the trial court erred by admitting
evidence about his medications and prior domestic violence;
the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his
convictions; the prosecutor withheld exculpatory impeachment
about the complaining witness's arrest; and his trial and
appellate attorneys deprived him of effective assistance. The
Court found no merit in these claims and denied the habeas
petition. Currently before the Court is Petitioner's
application for a certificate of appealability.
Court declined to grant a certificate of appealability in its
dispositive opinion. Accordingly, the Court construes
Petitioner's current application for a certificate of
appealability as a motion for reconsideration. Under this
District's Local Rules, the Court generally
will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that
merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court,
either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant
must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard
on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting
the defect will result in a different disposition of the
LR 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect' is a
defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704
F.Supp.2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v.
St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718
(E.D. Mich. 2001)).
has asked the Court to issue a certificate of appealability
on the following claims: the trial court erred by admitting
evidence of his prescription medications; the prosecution
withheld exculpatory evidence that the complaining witness
was arrested days before the incident giving rise to the
charges against Petitioner; and defense counsel's
representation fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and undermined confidence in the outcome of
Petitioner's trial. The Court adjudicated the substantive
merits of these claims in its dispositive opinion. The Court
stated that the alleged evidentiary error regarding
Petitioner's medications was not so fundamentally unfair
as to violate Petitioner's right to due process and that
state court's finding of harmless error was objectively
Court rejected Petitioner's claim about the
prosecutor's alleged withholding of evidence because the
evidence was not material. The Court also determined that the
state court's conclusion -- that the outcome of the
proceedings would not have been different if the evidence had
been disclosed to the defense - was reasonable.
regarding defense counsel, the Court concluded from the
record that counsel's alleged shortcomings did not amount
to deficient performance and that any deficiency did not
prejudice the defense. Further, given the double deference
due to Petitioner's ineffectiveness claim on habeas
review, the Court stated that Petitioner was not entitled to
relief on the claim.
has failed to convince the Court that it made an obvious,
clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain error in its
rejection of his habeas claims. Accordingly, the Court denies
Petitioner's application for a certificate of
appealability regarding his evidentiary claim about his
medications, his prosecutorial-misconduct claim, and his
claims regarding trial counsel.
has also asked the Court to grant a certificate of
appealability on his claim that there was insufficient
evidence of false imprisonment. Additionally, he contends
that charging him with false imprisonment violated his Fifth
Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy.
admits that he did not make the double-jeopardy argument in
his habeas petition. He also did not satisfy the exhaustion
requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1) by first
raising the double-jeopardy claim in state court. Both the
Michigan Court of Appeals and this Court, moreover,
determined that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence
to support the false-imprisonment charge. Therefore,
Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability
on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the
false-imprisonment charge or on his double jeopardy claim.
conclusion, Petitioner has presented some of the same issues
that the Court previously adjudicated, and he has not
demonstrated that the Court made a palpable error in
rejecting those claims. Petitioner's double-jeopardy
claim is a new and unexhausted claim, which the Court is not
required to address. ...