Corey B. Howell v. Adam Douglas

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denies Corey B. Howell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged the admission of other-acts evidence, pre-arrest delay, the failure to give a lesser-included-offense instruction, the sufficiency of the evidence, and statements in the presentence investigation report. The court also denies a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Holdings

1. The admission of Howell's prior CSC-II conviction did not warrant federal habeas relief because alleged violations of Michigan evidentiary law are generally not cognizable on habeas review, and no clearly established Supreme Court precedent holds that admitting propensity evidence in this context violates due process.
2. Howell was not entitled to habeas relief on his pre-arrest-delay claim because he failed to establish both substantial prejudice to his ability to receive a fair trial and that the prosecution intentionally delayed proceedings to gain a tactical advantage or for another illegitimate purpose.
3. The failure to instruct the jury on third-degree criminal sexual conduct did not warrant federal habeas relief because the alleged error concerned state law and the Supreme Court has not clearly established a constitutional right to a lesser-included-offense instruction in a noncapital case.
4. The evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support Howell's convictions because, viewing the evidence in the prosecution's favor, a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Howell committed the charged sexual penetrations while armed or causing injury and using force or coercion.
5. Howell was not entitled to habeas relief based on the challenged presentence-report statements because he did not show that the sentencing court relied on materially false information. He also failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel's decision not to request a hearing was a reasonable strategy in light of the risk that the hearing would uncover more damaging information.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the admission of Howell's prior CSC-II conviction under Michigan's other-acts evidence provisions violated federal due process.
2. Whether the delay between the initial dismissal and refiling of the charges violated Howell's due-process rights.
3. Whether the failure to instruct the jury on third-degree criminal sexual conduct violated federal law.
4. Whether the evidence was constitutionally sufficient to support Howell's CSC-I convictions.
5. Whether the sentencing court violated due process by relying on materially false information in the presentence report.
6. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an evidentiary hearing concerning the presentence report.

Disposition

dismissed