Summary
This federal district court opinion denies a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner challenges his convictions for first-degree home invasion and unlawfully driving away an automobile, raising claims regarding supplemental jury instructions on aiding and abetting, sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing. Applying the deferential AEDPA standard, the court finds that the state court’s decisions were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and accordingly denies relief while granting a certificate of appealability on limited claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court’s supplemental aiding‑and‑abetting jury instruction violated the Fourteenth Amendment due process and the right to a jury trial.
- Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support convictions for first‑degree home invasion and unlawful driving away of an automobile.
- Whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.
- Whether sentencing was unconstitutional because it was based on Danski’s post‑conviction assertion of innocence.
Holdings
- The supplemental instruction did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment; the instruction was permissible and did not deprive Danski of a fair trial.
- The evidence was sufficient; the convictions were supported by direct and circumstantial evidence and the state court’s determination was not objectively unreasonable.
- Counsel’s performance was not deficient and any alleged deficiencies did not prejudice Danski; the claims are denied.
- The sentencing consideration of lack of remorse is permissible; no constitutional violation occurred.
Key quotations
“A petitioner alleging error in a jury instruction must establish not only that the instruction was undesirable or erroneous, “but that it violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment.”” (*4)
“On federal habeas review, the Court “may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court.”” (*5)
Factual background
Danski broke into a home in Sterling Heights on June 24, 2015, stole a purse, phone, and car keys, and drove away the victim’s vehicle. He later crashed the vehicle, fled, and was arrested. Fingerprints, cell‑phone tower data, and his own statements linked him to the crime.
Procedural history
Danski was convicted of first‑degree home invasion and unlawful driving away of an automobile in Michigan state court. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and denied his ineffective‑assistance claims. The Michigan Supreme Court denied his applications for further review. He then filed a federal habeas petition in this district court.