This post examines an opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan – Southern Division: Welch
v. Winn, 2016 WL 4205994 (2016). The District Court Judge begins the
opinion by explaining that
[t]his is a habeas case brought
pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 2254. Petitioner Cedric Welch was convicted
after a jury trial in the Kent County Circuit Court of armed robbery, Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.529; and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.157a. Petitioner was sentenced as a fourth-time
habitual felony offender to concurrent terms of 21-to-50 years' imprisonment
for his two convictions.
The petition raises five claims: (i)
insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain Petitioner's
convictions, (ii) the trial court erroneously admitted expert witness
testimony, (iii) Petitioner's confrontation rights were violated by admission
of a non-testifying co-defendant's statement, (iv) the trial court erroneously
allowed admission of voice identification evidence, and (v) Petitioner's
sentence was based on inaccurately scored sentencing guidelines.
Welch v. Winn, supra.
The Judge began his analysis of Welch’s habeas petition by
explaining how he came to be prosecuted for, and convicted of, armed robbery
and conspiracy to commit armed robbery:
In the early morning hours of September
1, 2011, two masked men robbed a McDonald's restaurant on Alpine Road in Grand
Rapids at gun point. The robbers entered the dining room through a door
mistakenly left unlocked. After ordering the restaurant's three employees to
lie on the ground, the masked men forced the store manager to give them the
contents of the safe. The robbers absconded with $400 worth of paper gift
certificates and $3,233.73 in cash. The victims were only able to describe
their assailants as African-American males who wore dark or black clothes. The
victims agreed that one of the men carried a revolver. Surveillance footage
also revealed that the robbers wore white cloth gloves.
As the robbers fled the scene,
surveillance cameras captured their images and showed the men entering an older
black Camaro. Two employees of a nearby Wal-Mart saw the men leave the
McDonald's. And a man, who had been at the drive-through window during the
robbery, testified that he saw a dull black Camaro drive away at a high rate of
speed.
Later that morning, a Kent County
Sheriff's deputy located a dull black, older Camaro parked in a nearby
apartment complex, York Creek. Inside the vehicle, sheriff's deputies found
several white gloves. Inside one glove, investigating deputies found DNA
evidence, which later testing matched to co-defendant Woods. The deputies also
placed a magnetic GPS system under the vehicle's rear bumper, which they later
used to track the vehicle in motion. The deputies arrested Woods as a result of
an ensuing traffic stop. At the time of his arrest, Woods had several large
rolls of currency in various small denominations in his pocket. The
deputies seized the currency and Woods' cell phone.
Welch v. Winn, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that on
Woods' cell phone, the investigating
deputies found a video of defendant and Woods pretending to swim in money. They
also found pictures of defendant and Woods holding a large amount of currency
near their faces. The video had been e-mailed at 4:10 a.m. on September 1, to
Woods' Google account
from an account owned by defendant. The pictures were taken at 5:47 a.m. on
September 1.
Inside Woods' apartment, deputies found
18 booklets of McDonald's paper gift certificates. They also found dark
clothing lying on the ground outside of the master bedroom closet. There were
spores on the pants matching plant life found along the trail between the
Camaro's parking spot and the York Creek apartment of defendant's girlfriend.
The deputies matched the still photographs of defendant and Woods holding
currency to this location.
The deputies secured a warrant to search
an apartment in York Creek belonging to defendant's girlfriend. The video of
the men swimming in money was matched to this location. The officers then
secured a search warrant for the home where defendant resided with his parents.
In defendant's bedroom, the deputies found a plastic case for a revolver-style
Daisy air gun. There was an alternate second barrel inside the case, but the
revolver was never found. The deputies also never recovered the remainder of
the currency. Of note, investigation of defendant's and Woods' cell phone
records revealed that they were in the area of the Alpine Road McDonald's and
the York Creek apartment near the time of the robbery. And surveillance footage
from a local gas station placed defendant and Woods together only two hours
after the robbery.
Defendant was not arrested until
September 3, 2011. On September 2, 2012, Woods used a recorded jail telephone
to contact defendant. The conversation was very cryptic and Woods immediately
instructed defendant not to use any names. Woods told defendant to send a text message to Woods' cell phone that would activate a `Prey’ software application he had downloaded onto his phone, ostensibly to delete or
block access to the phone's contents. This task was never accomplished.
Based on the evidence presented at
defendant's retrial, the jury convicted him
of armed robbery and conspiracy.
Welch v. Winn, supra. The opinion also notes that the
Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Welch’s conviction and the Michigan Supreme
Court declined to review the case. Welch
v. Winn, supra.
The Court of Appeals began its analysis of Welch’s argument
regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial by noting that 28
U.S. Code § 2254(d) establishes the following as the standard court must apply
in 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; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the State court proceeding.
Welch v. Winn, supra.
The Court of Appeals began its analysis with Welch’s
argument that
insufficient evidence was presented at trial
to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt his identification as one of the
perpetrators of the crimes. He argues that there was sufficient evidence
linking Woods to the crimes and linking him to Woods, but there was no evidence
linking him to the crime. Petitioner asserts that evidence that he was
with Woods on the day of the crime is insufficient to demonstrate that he acted
in concert with Woods. Respondent asserts that the state-court adjudication of
the claim was reasonable.
`[T]he Due Process Clause protects the
accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every
fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.’ In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).
But the critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction is, `whether the record evidence could reasonably
support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318(1979). This inquiry, however, does not require a court to `ask itself
whether it believes that
the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead,
the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
supra (emphasis in original).
More importantly, a federal habeas
court may not overturn a state-court decision that rejects a sufficiency of the
evidence claim simply because the federal court disagrees with the state
court's resolution of that claim. A federal court may grant habeas relief only
if the state-court decision was an objectively unreasonable application of
`the Jackson standard. See Cavazos
v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2, 3 (2011) (per curiam). “Because rational people can sometimes disagree, the inevitable
consequence of this settled law is that judges will sometimes encounter
convictions that they believe to be mistaken, but that they must nonetheless
uphold.” Id. For a
federal habeas court reviewing a state court conviction, `the only question
under Jackson is whether
that finding was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality.' Coleman v. Johnson,132 S. Ct. 2060, 2065 (2012).
Welch v. Winn, supra.
The opinion goes on to explain that the Michigan Court of
Appeals
did not unreasonably apply the Jackson standard when it found that
sufficient evidence was presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Petitioner was one of the two men who committed the offenses. Petitioner
does not contest the strong evidence presented that Woods committed the robbery
and that another man committed the crime with him. The strongest evidence
identifying Petitioner as the man who acted with Woods was the video sent from
Petitioner's phone to Woods through e-mail three hours after the robbery
occurred. The video shows the two men playing with cash and throwing it in the
air in celebration. While the prosecutor could not establish when the video was
recorded, the fact that it was sent hours after the robbery constituted strong
circumstantial evidence that Petitioner was one the two men who committed the
robbery. Evidence was also presented that Petitioner was with Woods at a gas
station two hours after the robbery. Given the doubly-deferential standard of
review, the video evidence alone supports the state court's conclusion that
sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate Petitioner's identity as one
of the perpetrators.
Moreover, evidence was presented that
after he was arrested, Woods called Petitioner from jail. During the recorded
call, Petitioner asks Woods if he told them about his alibi, and Woods asked
Petitioner to text him a program to erase the video. Viewed most favorably to
the prosecution, the recorded conversation constituted additional strong
evidence indicated Petitioner's participation in the crime. Other evidence
presented against Petitioner included the fact that Petitioner's girlfriend
lived in the apartments near the McDonald's where the robbery occurred, that he
was in her apartment immediately before the robbery, that the getaway car was
stashed at the apartment complex, and cell phone tower records indicating
Petitioner's location near the scene. Given the record evidence viewed most
favorably to the prosecutor, the Michigan Court of Appeals conclusion that
sufficient evidence was presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
Petitioner's identity as the man who acted with Woods was at least reasonable.
Petitioner also asserts that
insufficient evidence was presented to support his conspiracy conviction. Under
Michigan law, a conspiracy is an express or implied mutual agreement or
understanding between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to
accomplish a legal act by unlawful means. People v. Cotton, 478 N.W.2d 681, 688 (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991).
A conspiracy may be based on inferences or proven by circumstantial
evidence. People v. Cotton, supra.
The evidence presented a trial that the
two perpetrators conspired to commit a robbery was overwhelming. The evidence
indicated that the robbery was planned; it occurred early in the morning, two
men came into the store together, they acted in concert, they left together in
a car, the car was then abandoned in a nearby lot, and the two men then got
into a different car. This evidence strongly indicates that the robbery was
planned beforehand by the perpetrators. The Michigan Court of Appeals
conclusion that the sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate a
conspiracy was reasonable.
Welch v. Winn, supra.
The Court of Appeals therefore found that Welch’s first
argument on appeals was “without merit.” Welch
v. Winn, supra. For that and other reasons, the District Court
Judge held that
[f]or the reasons stated above, the
Court denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice, declines
to issue a certificate of appealability, and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Welch v. Winn, supra.
No comments:
Post a Comment