Garrison v. Morrison

Garrison v. Morrison · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division · March 31, 2025 · No. 21-cv-12769

Summary

This federal district court opinion grants a conditional writ of habeas corpus for a Michigan state prisoner challenging his convictions for first-degree felony murder, arson, and firearm offenses. The court finds that the prosecution presented insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a late-arriving alibi witness. While the court addresses claims of prosecutorial misconduct and procedural default, it ultimately rules that the state court's adjudication unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent regarding sufficiency of the evidence.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Writing for the Court
Denise Page Hood
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
March 31, 2025
Docket number
21-cv-12769
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Standard of review
AEDPA unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or unreasonable determination of facts
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Franklyn Dimun Garrison v. Bryan Morrison
Disposition
other

Topics

criminal proceduredue processspeedy trialprosecutorial misconductineffective assistance

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal precedent in finding the evidence sufficient to support Garrison's convictions.
  2. Whether prosecutorial comments during trial violated due process.
  3. Whether Garrison's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated.
  4. Whether Garrison received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to jury instructions.
  5. Whether Garrison received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an adjournment to allow an alibi witness to testify.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; the state court's determination was an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia.
  2. The prosecutor's comments did not rise to the level of a due‑process violation; the claim is denied.
  3. Garrison did not demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; the claim is denied.
  4. Counsel's failure to object to the jury instruction was not deficient; the claim is denied.
  5. Counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial; the state court's decision was an unreasonable application of Strickland, and relief is warranted.

Key quotations

The evidence in this case is insufficient to support the convictions. The state court’s determination to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia. (*6)
The Court finds that Garrison was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance and the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. (*5)

Factual background

Franklyn Dimun Garrison was alleged to have participated in the July 18, 2015 shooting and arson of Kevin Walker. Evidence included cell‑phone location data, DNA mixtures, eyewitness testimony, and seized ammunition. Garrison maintained that he was at the scene only briefly and that key alibi testimony was unavailable at trial.

Procedural history

Garrison was convicted in Wayne County Circuit Court of multiple offenses and sentenced to life without parole and additional terms. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court remanded, then again affirmed. Garrison filed a federal habeas petition challenging sufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, speedy trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Remand instructions

The State must take action to afford petitioner a new trial within ninety (90) days of the date of this opinion or the date appellate review becomes final, whichever is later; otherwise petitioner is to be released from custody and convictions vacated.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…