- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DUNCAN ALEXANDER,

Petitioner, Case Number 14-CV-13430

Hon. George Caram Steeh

v. United States District Judge

THOMAS WINN, 

Respondent.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, 

AND GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Duncan Alexander, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the Kinross 

Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, filed a pro se habeas corpus 

petition challenging his state conviction for five counts of first-degree 

criminal sexual conduct, two counts of second-degree criminal sexual 

conduct, one count of child sexually abusive activity, one count of 

possession of child sexually abusive material, one count of gross 

indecency, and one count of possession with intent to deliver less than 50

grams of cocaine. For the reasons stated below, the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus is DENIED.

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5266 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 56
- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in the Macomb County 

Circuit Court. This Court recites verbatim the relevant facts relied upon by 

the Michigan Court of Appeals, which are presumed correct on habeas 

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See e.g. Wagner v. Smith, 581 

F.3d 410, 413 (6th Cir. 2009):

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A lengthy jury trial was held in this case. Each lower court case 

is related to a separate CSC victim (AH, KB, and TH)1; KB’s

case (Docket No. 302038) additionally contains defendant’s 

possession with intent to deliver cocaine conviction.

A. INVESTIGATION AND ARREST

Detective Sergeant James Selewski of the Sterling Heights 

Police Department was working in the youth division of the 

Sterling Heights Police Department in 2009. Selewski became 

the officer in charge of a CSC investigation involving (at the 

time) two complainants, KB and AH. Selewski called Detective 

Galewski to interview KB and AH. The two complainants were 

interviewed and a forensic examination of AH was conducted. 

AH was given a full-body examination and a sexual abuse 

evidence kit was completed. Anal and vaginal swabs were 

taken, as well as a swab from AH’s left breast. A hair was 

found in AH’s underwear. Later, “suspect” samples of 

defendant’s DNA and hair were taken, including a penile swab.

1 Because the victims were minors at the time of the offenses, the Court will refer to 

them by their initials only to preserve their privacy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). The 

Court will also refer to one of the victim’s mothers by her initials, as the Michigan Court 

of Appeals did, for the same reason. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5267 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 56
- 3 -

Based on the interviews, Selewski ordered that defendant be 

arrested and obtained a search warrant for defendant’s home. 

Police entered defendant’s home searching for photographs 

and other forms of media. Police seized items from defendant’s 

bedroom, including a desktop computer, laptop computer, 

video cameras, bedding, and clothing. During the search, 

police discovered three baggies containing white powder under 

defendant’s mattress. Police also found bottles of Inositol, a 

purported nutritional supplement that is often used to cut 

cocaine, as well as a digital scale.

Defendant was arrested and brought to the Macomb County 

Sheriff’s office, where he was interviewed by Detective 

Anderson of the Macomb County Sheriff’s Office. Defendant 

waived his Miranda rights via written form. Defendant told 

Anderson that he lived with AH and her mother, SH, to whom 

he was engaged at the time. KB was a friend of the family. 

Defendant denied sexually abusing AH or KB. He stated that 

on the day he allegedly assaulted AH, he had grounded her for 

not doing her schoolwork. He further stated that he had kissed 

her stomach in a playful manner, and that a short time later he 

caught AH masturbating.

Regarding KB, defendant stated that he had taken 

photographs of KB in order to assist her with getting into 

modeling; he denied taking any nude or inappropriate pictures. 

Defendant stated that he thought KB was flirting with him and 

that they had spoken about sexual issues and masturbation. 

Defendant stated that he had taken KB to a convention on 

modeling and that during the visit, he had photographed 

himself nude in the hotel room with the intent of sending the 

pictures to SH. He stated that KB was not present when he 

took the pictures. He also stated that KB had taken pictures of 

herself that were inappropriate and placed them on his 

computer. He stated that he deleted the pictures when he 

discovered them.

The white powder in the bags was identified by laboratory 

testing as cocaine. Biology trace testing revealed saliva on 

AH’s genital swabs and underpants. The hair found in AH’s 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5268 Filed 08/24/22 Page 3 of 56
- 4 -

underwear was microscopically similar to defendant’s pubic 

hair. DNA testing revealed that the saliva found on AH’s genital 

swab belonged to AH. Defendant’s penile swab revealed a 

mixture of two individuals, one of whom was defendant. AH 

could not be excluded as the other donor.

In 2009, TH alleged that she had been sexually abused by 

defendant. She was interviewed at CARE House by a forensic 

interviewer. As a result of this interview, additional charges 

were filed against defendant.

B. RELEVANT PRETRIAL MOTIONS

On February 18, 2010, the prosecution requested that the trial 

court join the three files against defendant into one trial, 

arguing that the offenses were related under MCR 

6.120(B)(1)(c), and additionally arguing that evidence of sexual 

abuse of each victim would be admissible in the other cases 

against defendant. The trial court determined that no prejudice 

would result from joinder of the trials and granted the motion to 

join the trials. Defendant requested at the beginning of trial that 

the trials be severed; the trial court denied the request.

On August 3, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the 

charges against him, claiming his right to a speedy trial had 

been violated. After a hearing on September 13, 2010, the trial 

court denied defendant’s motion.

C. TRIAL

Each of the victims testified at defendant’s trial. KB testified 

that defendant had known her mother for 15 years, and that 

she called him her uncle and looked up to him. She first met 

defendant in 2007 when she was 13. KB knew both AH and 

TH. She testified that in February of 2009, defendant invited 

her to go to a water park in Ohio with him and his children. 

However, after she arrived at defendant’s house, defendant 

told her there was a problem with the hotel reservations and 

they could not go. Instead KB stayed at defendant’s house that 

weekend with defendant and his children. On Sunday, 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5269 Filed 08/24/22 Page 4 of 56
- 5 -

defendant took his children home; afterward he and KB went to 

McDonald’s and talked about KB’s interest in modeling. 

Defendant indicated to KB that he could help her start a 

modeling career. Defendant made a phone call, purportedly to 

a modeling agency, and told KB that the woman he spoke to 

wanted pictures of her. Defendant offered to take the pictures.

Defendant took pictures of her hands, feet, legs, and face. KB 

also testified that defendant took 14 photos that were admitted 

into evidence. The photos depicted her in various poses, 

including bending over and exposing her buttocks, pulling her 

top up to expose her stomach, on the bed with her legs spread 

and a stuffed animal in front of her genital area, and pictures 

that exposed “thong” underwear that defendant gave her to 

wear.

KB testified that defendant then told her to lie on the bed and 

that she “needed to make the camera want [her].” She stated 

that when she turned around, defendant had removed his 

clothing and was touching his penis with his hand. Defendant 

then removed her underwear and placed his tongue in her 

vagina. Defendant took KB home after taking her to get her 

nails done. KB testified that she knew what defendant did was 

wrong, but that she did not tell anyone because she thought it 

was her fault and her mother would not believe her.

About a month later, KB agreed to accompany defendant to a 

purported photo shoot at a hotel. She testified that in the hotel 

room, defendant directed her to take pictures of himself nude 

and touching his penis. Two pictures of defendant nude were 

admitted into evidence.

KB’s mother testified that she became suspicious after 

conversing with defendant’s fiancée and discovering that she 

was not present during the weekend of the attempted trip to 

the water park. She questioned KB; after KB told her what 

happened, she took KB to the police station.

AH testified that she lived with defendant, TH (her sister), and 

her mother, SH. She was eleven in 2009. In the parking lot of 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5270 Filed 08/24/22 Page 5 of 56
- 6 -

the police station, AH volunteered that she had been 

“molested” by defendant, using that exact word. She testified 

that defendant had touched her vaginal area with his hand, 

tongue, and penis. She testified that at least three incidents 

happened—on defendant’s bed, on a couch, and on a 

mattress in the basement. She also testified that defendant 

touched her breasts during all three incidents. She denied 

masturbating and denied that defendant ever kissed her 

stomach in a playful way. AH testified that she was sexually 

abused as punishment for missing homework assignments.

TH testified that she lived with defendant, AH, and her mother, 

SH, in 2009. In July of 2009, TH disclosed that she had also 

been sexually abused by defendant. She testified that 

defendant would make her do a “stand” when she was being 

punished—he would make her take off her pants and 

underwear and get on her hands and knees, and would touch 

her vagina with his hands and penis. This happened four or 

five days per week from the age of nine to thirteen. She also 

testified that defendant would rub his penis until he ejaculated 

onto a towel.

SH testified that following defendant’s arrest, defendant asked 

her throw away his “come towel,” put a CD holder in boiling 

water, and flush other items down the toilet. She denied 

influencing any of the victims’ testimony and stated that she 

told them to tell the truth. She testified that defendant never 

sent her any nude pictures, and never told her that he caught 

AH masturbating.

A DNA analyst, Shiao–Mei Smith, testified as to the testing of 

the DNA found on defendant’s penile swab. She testified that 

the she was able to deduce a “partial [DNA] profile” of the 

second DNA donor from eight locations on the provided DNA 

swab, and that the eight locations matched AH’s DNA profile. 

Smith further testified that this partial profile could be found in 

one of 4.7 billion people in the Caucasian population. Smith 

admitted on cross examination that she could not state with 

scientific certainty that DNA was from AH, but only that she 

could not be excluded. Smith also testified that she had initially 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5271 Filed 08/24/22 Page 6 of 56
- 7 -

received mismarked samples and had to request new samples. 

She stated she had not received any DNA samples from SH.

A police expert in forensic computer investigation, Detective 

Miller, testified as to his investigation of defendant’s computer. 

Miller recovered more than 20 pictures of KB in various stages 

of undress that had been saved to the computer and then 

deleted. Miller also located two pornographic video files saved 

onto the computer. The videos depicted young girls engaged in 

sexual acts. The names of the videos were “14 YO girl reaches 

orgasm peeing with big toys vibrator.mpg” and “15 YO girl 

fingers 14 YO friend.mpg.”

Defendant presented testimony from a friend of his and his son 

as to his good character and his involvement in the music and 

lawn aeration businesses. Defendant also testified and denied 

taking suggestive photos of KB, claiming that she 

photographed herself with the self-timing feature on his camera 

and that he deleted the pictures when he discovered them. He 

denied removing her underwear, removing any of his clothing, 

or masturbating in front of her. Defendant stated that he took 

nude photos of himself at the hotel room while KB was not 

present, to send to his fiancée. He denied sexually abusing AH 

and TH. He stated that he caught AH masturbating and that he 

told SH this. He testified that he had taken the cocaine and 

scale from a friend at a party. Defendant stated that he used 

Inositol as a workout supplement. Defendant also testified that 

he downloaded pornographic videos from “Lime Wire” without 

necessarily looking at the titles, and that he had searched for 

“squirting” videos.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict 

related to the possession with intent to deliver cocaine charge 

and the gross indecency charges. The jury convicted 

defendant as stated above.

People v. Alexander, No. 302026, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 1–4 

(Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2013)(internal footnote omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5272 Filed 08/24/22 Page 7 of 56
- 8 -

Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id., lv. den. 495 Mich. 

979, 843 N.W.2d 903 (2014); reconsideration den. 496 Mich. 862, 847 

N.W.2d 629 (2014).

Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was held 

in abeyance so that he could return to the state courts to exhaust 

additional claims. (ECF No. 13).

Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment 

pursuant to M.C.R. 6.500, et. seq., which the trial court denied. People v. 

Alexander, No. 2009-5130, 2009-5132, 2009-5135 (Macomb Cty.Cir.Ct., 

Aug. 16, 2017)(ECF No. 22-36). The Michigan appellate courts denied 

petitioner leave to appeal. People v. Alexander, No. 342398 (Mich.Ct.App. 

July 11, 2018); lv. den. 503 Mich. 947, 922 N.W.2d 125 (2019).

This Court reopened the case to the Court’s active docket and 

permitted petitioner to file an amended petition. 

In his original petition, petitioner seeks habeas relief on the following 

grounds:

I. There was insufficient evidence to support any of the 

charges. 

II. The trial court abused its discretion and violated Alexander’s 

due process rights by granting the prosecutor’s motion for 

joinder of the three cases into a single trial. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5273 Filed 08/24/22 Page 8 of 56
- 9 -

III. Alexander spent 559 days in jail awaiting trial, of which only 

17 days were attributable to Alexander. The trial court erred in 

failing to dismiss the case as violating Alexander’s right to a 

speedy trial. 

IV. Alexander was deprived of the effective assistance of 

counsel for: a. The failure of defense counsel to investigate 

and consult with an expert about the forensic interview 

process, external influences of children’s memory and common 

behaviors of persons who sexual abuse children, as well as by 

defense counsel’s failure to effectively cross-examine 

prosecution witnesses and obtain an expert witness to testify 

about these matters. b. Trial counsel failed to subject the 

prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, resulting 

in a presumption of prejudice. 

V. The trial court abused its discretion and deprived Alexander 

of a fair trial in its evidentiary rulings, individually and 

cumulatively, at trial. 

VI. The cumulative effect of all errors deprived Alexander of a 

fair trial. 

VII. Trial counsel committed a wide range of errors and 

omissions which deprived Alexander the effective assistance of 

counsel.

In his amended petition, petitioner seeks relief on the following 

grounds:

I. Defendant is entitled to relief from judgment where he was 

denied his state and federal constitutional rights to selfrepresentation. 

II. Defendant is entitled to relief from judgment where his 

sentencing offense variables were improperly scored; 

defendant was denied due process where these scores were 

not admitted by defendant nor determined by a jury, therefore 

constituting a departure contrary to the recent holding in 

People v. Lockridge. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5274 Filed 08/24/22 Page 9 of 56
- 10 -

III. Defendant is entitled to relief from judgment where he was 

denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel for failure 

to raise plain and obvious issues; the cumulative effect of 

errors on appeal as articulated by the Court of Appeals opinion 

demonstrates ineffectiveness and deficient performance which 

was outcome determinative under the Strickland standard and 

but for counsel’s unprofessional errors a different outcome was 

likely. A new trial or appeal should be ordered.

II. Standard of Review

 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by The Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), imposes the following standard of 

review for 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.

A decision of a state court is “contrary to” clearly established federal 

law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by 

the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a 

case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5275 Filed 08/24/22 Page 10 of 56
- 11 -

indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). 

An “unreasonable application” occurs when “a state court decision 

unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a 

prisoner’s case.” Id. at 409. A federal habeas court may not “issue the writ 

simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the

relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law 

erroneously or incorrectly.” Id. at 410-11.

III. Discussion

A. Claim # 1. The insufficiency of evidence claims.

Petitioner first argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

It is beyond question that “the 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). A court need not “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 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5276 Filed 08/24/22 Page 11 of 56
- 12 -

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the 

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 318-19 

(internal citation and footnote omitted)(emphasis in the original). 

A federal habeas court may not overturn a state court decision that 

rejects a sufficiency of the evidence claim merely because the federal 

court disagrees with the state court’s resolution of that claim. Instead, 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, 565 U.S. 1, 2 (2011). “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. Indeed, 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, 566 U.S. 650, 656 

(2012). A state court’s determination that the evidence does not fall below 

that threshold is entitled to “considerable deference under [the] AEDPA.” 

Id. 

Finally, on habeas review, a federal court does not reweigh the 

evidence or redetermine the credibility of the witnesses whose demeanor 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5277 Filed 08/24/22 Page 12 of 56
- 13 -

was observed at trial. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 434 (1983). It 

is the province of the factfinder to weigh the probative value of the 

evidence and resolve any conflicts in testimony. Neal v. Morris, 972 F. 2d 

675, 679 (6th Cir. 1992). A habeas court therefore must defer to the fact 

finder for its assessment of the credibility of witnesses. Matthews v. 

Abramajtys, 319 F. 3d 780, 788 (6th Cir. 2003). 

Petitioner initially contends that there was insufficient evidence to 

support his various criminal sexual conduct convictions because the 

victims’ testimony was inconsistent, incredible, and not corroborated by 

any additional witness testimony or physical evidence.

Attacks on witness credibility are simply challenges to the quality of 

the prosecution’s evidence, and not to the sufficiency of the evidence. 

Martin v. Mitchell, 280 F. 3d 594, 618 (6th Cir. 2002). An assessment of 

the credibility of witnesses is generally beyond the scope of federal 

habeas review of sufficiency of evidence claims. Gall v. Parker, 231 F. 3d 

265, 286 (6th Cir. 2000). The mere existence of sufficient evidence to 

convict therefore defeats a petitioner’s claim. Id. Indeed, the testimony of 

a single, uncorroborated prosecuting witness or other eyewitness is 

generally sufficient to support a conviction, so long as the prosecution 

presents evidence which establishes the elements of the offense beyond a 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5278 Filed 08/24/22 Page 13 of 56
- 14 -

reasonable doubt. Brown v. Davis, 752 F. 2d 1142, 1144-1145 (6th Cir. 

1985). 

Petitioner’s insufficiency of evidence claim rests on an allegation of 

the victims’ credibility, which is the province of the jury. Petitioner is 

therefore not entitled to habeas relief on this claim. See Tyler v. Mitchell,

416 F. 3d 500, 505 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Additionally, the fact that the victims’ testimony was uncorroborated 

does not render the evidence in this case insufficient. The testimony of a 

sexual assault victim alone is sufficient to support a criminal defendant’s 

conviction. See United States v. Howard, 218 F. 3d 556, 565 (6th Cir. 

2000)(citing Gilbert v. Parke, 763 F. 2d 821, 826 (6th Cir. 1985)). The 

victims’ testimony that petitioner engaged in various forms of sexual 

misconduct with them was sufficient to sustain petitioner’s criminal sexual 

conduct convictions, notwithstanding the alleged lack of additional 

evidence to corroborate the victims’ testimony. See O’Hara v. Brigano, 499 

F. 3d 492, 500 (6th Cir. 2007).

Petitioner argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him 

because the police did not recover DNA evidence, fingerprints, or other 

forensic evidence to convict. The Sixth Circuit notes that the “lack of 

physical evidence does not render the evidence presented insufficient; 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5279 Filed 08/24/22 Page 14 of 56
- 15 -

instead it goes to weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.” Gipson v. 

Sheldon, 659 F. App’x. 871, 882 (6th Cir. 2016). Petitioner is not entitled 

to relief on his claim that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his

criminal sexual conduct convictions.

Petitioner also claims that there was insufficient evidence to support 

his possession of child sexually abusive material conviction. Petitioner, 

however, makes no argument in his petition or in his state appellate court 

briefs which he attached to his petition as to why the evidence was 

insufficient to convict him of this charge. A habeas petitioner is not entitled 

to federal habeas relief on a conclusory, unsupported claim that the 

evidence was insufficient to convict. Petitioner is not entitled to relief on 

this claim. See Bradford v. Williams, 479 F. App’x. 832, 836 (10th Cir. 

2012).

Petitioner lastly contends that there was insufficient evidence to 

convict him of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. The Michigan 

Court of Appeals rejected this claim:

Here, Selewski testified that three baggies of a powder that 

turned out to be cocaine were found in defendant’s room, 

along with a scale and bottles of a substance commonly used 

as a cutting agent. Selewski testified that the baggies, scale, 

and cutting agent found in the room were consistent with the 

distribution of controlled substances. Viewed in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution, a jury could rationally conclude 

from the fact that the cocaine was packaged in multiple 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5280 Filed 08/24/22 Page 15 of 56
- 16 -

baggies and the presence of a scale and cutting agent that the 

cocaine was not solely for defendant’s personal use and that 

he intended to deliver it to others. Although defendant 

presented an alternate explanation for his possession of the 

cocaine, scale, and cutting agent, the jury did not find 

defendant’s explanation credible. We find no basis on which to 

disturb the jury’s determination.

People v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 6 (internal citation omitted).

Under Michigan law, to convict a defendant of possession with intent 

to deliver a controlled substance, the prosecution must prove: (1) that the 

recovered substance is a narcotic; (2) the weight of the substance; (3) that 

the defendant was not authorized to possess the substance; and (4) that 

the defendant knowingly possessed the substance with the intent to 

deliver it. See People v. McGhee, 268 Mich. App. 600, 622; 709 N.W.2d 

595 (2005).

“Intent to deliver has been inferred from the quantity of narcotics in a 

defendant’s possession, from the way in which those narcotics are 

packaged, and from other circumstances surrounding the arrest.” People 

v. Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508, 524, 441 N.W. 2d 1201 (1992). A defendant’s 

intent to deliver may be established by circumstantial evidence. See 

People v. Ray, 191 Mich. App 706, 708; 479 N.W. 2d 1 (1991). 

The Michigan Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that there was 

sufficient evidence to convict petitioner of possession with intent to deliver 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5281 Filed 08/24/22 Page 16 of 56
- 17 -

cocaine. In the present case, evidence that the cocaine had been 

packaged into separate baggies and that a scale had been recovered from 

the house support the jury’s finding that petitioner intended to deliver the 

cocaine recovered from the house. See United States v. Miller, 817 F. 

App’x. 119, 125 (6th Cir. 2020). The presence of a cutting agent also 

supports a finding that petitioner intended to deliver the cocaine in his 

possession. See United States v. Collier, 246 F. App’x. 321, 330 (6th Cir. 

2007). Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his first claim.

B. Claim # 2. The misjoinder claim.

Petitioner next claims that his right to a fair trial was violated when 

the judge granted the prosecutor’s request to consolidate petitioner’s three 

separate cases involving different victims and different charges into one 

trial.

Improper joinder does not, by itself, violate the federal constitution. 

United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 446, n. 8 (1986). The Supreme 

Court in Lane suggested in passing that misjoinder could rise “to the level 

of a constitutional violation only if it results in prejudice so great as to deny 

a defendant his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial.” Id. The Sixth Circuit 

noted that this language in Lane concerning a court’s failure to sever 

criminal charges is simply dicta and thus not clearly established federal 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5282 Filed 08/24/22 Page 17 of 56
- 18 -

law. See Mayfield v. Morrow, 528 F. App’x. 538, 541-42 (6th Cir. 2013). 

Because “‘clearly established Federal law’ for purposes of § 2254(d)(1)

refers to ‘the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s 

decisions[.],’” Id. (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 412), the Sixth 

Circuit concluded that the habeas petitioner could not rely on Lane to 

obtain habeas relief on his claim that he had been deprived of his right to a 

fair trial when the judge denied his motion to sever different rape charges. 

Id. 

The Ninth Circuit has likewise held that a habeas petitioner could not 

rely on the Supreme Court’s dicta in Lane to obtain habeas relief on an 

improper misjoinder claim, particularly where that dicta was merely 

mentioned as a comment in a footnote of the opinion. See Collins v. 

Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2010). Another judge in this 

district, in rejecting a similar claim, indicated that he had “found no 

Supreme Court cases holding that a defendant in a criminal case has a 

constitutional right to a separate trial on each of the charges against him.” 

Rodriguez v. Jones, 625 F. Supp. 2d 552, 560-61 (E.D. Mich. 

2009)(Rosen, J.). 

Given the lack of holdings by the Supreme Court on the issue of 

whether a state court violates a habeas petitioner’s due process rights by 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5283 Filed 08/24/22 Page 18 of 56
- 19 -

joining together unrelated criminal charges in a single trial, the Michigan 

Court of Appeals’ rejection of petitioner’s improper joinder claim was not 

an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Wright 

v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 126 (2008); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 

77 (2006); See also Comaduran v. Clark, 452 F. App’x. 728, 728-29 (9th 

Cir. 2011).

Moreover, such claims have typically been rejected by the Sixth 

Circuit even on direct review of federal criminal convictions. The Sixth 

Circuit held that to establish prejudice from joinder, a defendant must point 

to specific evidence that the joinder was prejudicial and “an unproven 

assertion is not compelling evidence of actual prejudice.” U.S. v. Saadey, 

393 F. 3d 669, 679 (6th Cir. 2005). A jury is presumed capable of 

considering each criminal count separately and any prejudice arising from 

trial of joined offenses may be cured by limiting instructions. U.S. v. Cope, 

312 F. 3d 757, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). “Error based on misjoinder is almost 

always harmless where...the trial court issues a careful limiting instruction 

to the jury on the issue of possible prejudice resulting from the joinder.” 

U.S. v. Cody, 498 F. 3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2007).

“[U]nder Michigan law, severance is required only when a defendant 

shows that it is necessary to avoid prejudice to his substantial rights.” 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5284 Filed 08/24/22 Page 19 of 56
- 20 -

Clark v. McLemore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 535, 545 (E.D. Mich. 2003)(citing 

M.C.R. 6.121(C)). “[T]here is no absolute right to a separate trial, and joint 

trials are strongly favored ‘in the interest of justice, judicial economy and 

administration.’” Id. (quoting People v. Etheridge, 196 Mich. App. 43, 52; 

492 N.W. 2d 490 (1992)). Severance should only be granted “if there is a 

serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one 

of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment 

about guilt or innocence.” People v. Hana, 447 Mich. 325, 359-60; 524 

N.W. 2d 682 (1994)). Finally, under M.C.R. 6.120(B), a court must sever 

offenses that are not related as defined in MCR 6.120(B). MCR 6.120(B) 

defines related offenses that are those “based on (1) the same conduct, or 

(2) a series of connected acts or acts constituting part of a single scheme 

or plan.” 

In the present case, it was not fundamentally unfair to join the 

different charges against petitioner in a single trial because “joinder was 

an efficient use of resources.” Rodriguez v. Jones, 625 F. Supp. 2d at 561; 

See also Conte v. Cardwell, 475 F. 2d 698, 700 (6th Cir. 

1973)(participation by state habeas corpus petitioner in successive prison 

riots in the same institution separated in time by less than two months 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5285 Filed 08/24/22 Page 20 of 56
- 21 -

were sufficient circumstances to permit joinder of offenses in an indictment 

and in a trial without violation of due process.).

Petitioner was also not prejudiced by the joinder of the charges, 

because the Michigan Court of Appeals indicated that much of the same 

evidence involving the three separate cases would have been admissible 

against petitioner pursuant to M.C.L.A. 678.27a at separate trials. People 

v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 8 Because much of the same 

evidence would have been admitted against petitioner at separate trials, 

petitioner was not prejudiced by the joinder of the charges in this case. 

See LaMar v. Houk, 798 F.3d 405, 428 (6th Cir. 2015). Petitioner is not 

entitled to habeas relief because he failed to identify which evidence that 

was admitted at his joint trial would have been inadmissible if he had been 

tried separately with respect to each set of charges. Id. Petitioner is not 

entitled to relief on his second claim.

C. Claim # 3. The speedy trial claim.

Petitioner next claims that his right to a speedy trial was violated. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the claim at length:

Here, defendant was arrested on March 25, 2009. Defendant’s 

speedy trial motion was decided by the trial court on 

September 13, 2010 and defendant’s trial commenced on 

October 5, 2010. Thus, 559 days elapsed between arrest and 

trial. The 18–month benchmark was met on September 25, 

2010—after the trial court’s decision on defendant's motion. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5286 Filed 08/24/22 Page 21 of 56
- 22 -

Thus, at the time of the trial court’s decision, the burden was 

on defendant to prove prejudice. However, the delay was 

presumptively prejudicial by the time trial commenced. 

We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying 

defendant’s motion. Defendant moved for discovery on 

December 04, 2009; the motion was adjudicated on December 

14, 2009. Time spent adjudicating defense motions is charged 

to defendant. The trial court noted that on December 14, 2009, 

it granted defendant’s request to obtain a computer/electronics 

expert and DNA expert. Although no adjournment appears to 

have been entered, the trial court concluded, and defense 

counsel agreed, that some period of time could be attributed to 

the defense in order to allow time for its expert to prepare 

(although no expert ultimately testified at trial). Further, this 

conclusion is supported by the fact that defendant requested to 

adjourn the next substantial event following this grant, the 

pretrial conference on January 13, 2010 until January 20, 

2010.

Further, the original trial date of March 4, 2010 was adjourned 

by stipulation until May 11, 2010. Adjournments stipulated to 

by the defendant are attributable to the defendant. Thus, the 

bulk of the period between December 04, 2009 and May 11, 

2010, 158 days, was attributable to the defendant.

The trial court also did not clearly err in discounting 60 of the 

remaining days from May 11, 2010 to the date of the motion 

hearing from attribution to the prosecution, and charging the 

remaining days to the prosecution due to the unavailability of 

the investigating officer. The trial court appears to have 

credited the 60 days to scheduling delays and delays caused 

by the court system by making references like “if we had not 

been thinking that [the investigating officer] could come back” 

and stating that “I have to take responsibility for those.” 

Scheduling delays and delays caused by the court system, 

although attributable to the prosecution, should be given a 

neutral tint and only minimal weight. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5287 Filed 08/24/22 Page 22 of 56
- 23 -

In sum, the trial court did not err in concluding that, although 

portions of the delay were attributable to the prosecution and 

court system, a significant portion of the delay was attributable 

to defendant by adjudication of defense motions and requested 

and stipulated-to adjournments (almost six months by this 

Court’s count). Further, with respect to the prejudice factor, 

defendant only claims generally that he “lost witnesses” as a 

result of his incarceration, that he suffered natural loss of 

memory of events, and that he suffered anxiety and depression 

as a result of his incarceration. Defendant names no witnesses 

allegedly lost by this delay, and does not explain how these 

witnesses would have aided his defense. “General allegations 

of prejudice are insufficient to establish that a defendant was 

denied the right to a speedy trial.” We therefore conclude that 

the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion.

Defendant's trial commenced on October 5, 2010, 

approximately three weeks after the trial court’s decision on 

defendant’s motion to dismiss. By that point, as noted above, 

the 18 month benchmark had passed. However, defendant did 

not renew his request for dismissal based on violation of his 

right to a speedy trial. To the extent that defendant now argues 

that his right to a speedy trial was violated in the period 

between September 13, 2010 and October 5, 2010, such an 

argument is unpreserved and reviewed for plain error affecting 

substantial rights. 

The time period between September 13 and October 5 was 

chiefly occupied with adjudication of defendant’s motion to 

suppress certain reports and testimony. Thus, it appears that 

most, if not all, of the additional delay in defendant’s trial was 

attributable to defendant. Further, although the delay had 

become presumptively prejudicial to defendant, there is no 

basis for this Court to conclude that defendant was prejudiced 

by the delay when a large portion of the delay, including the 

portion between September 13 and October 5, was attributable 

to defendant.

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5288 Filed 08/24/22 Page 23 of 56
- 24 -

Balancing the four factors set forth in Williams, 475 Mich. at 

261, 716 N.W.2d 208,2 we conclude that defendant’s right to a 

speedy trial was not violated. The record demonstrates that a 

large portion of the delay was attributable to defendant. 

Defendant did not file a motion alleging that his right to a 

speedy trial was violated until approximately 16 months had 

passed since his arrest, and his trial commenced shortly after 

his motion was heard. Finally, no specific prejudice to his 

defense is alleged to have occurred.

People v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 9–11 (additional citations 

omitted).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a 

speedy trial. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. To determine whether a speedy trial 

violation has occurred, the court must consider the following four factors: 

(1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant’s 

assertion of his speedy trial right, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. 

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). No single factor is 

determinative, rather a court must weigh them and engage in a “difficult 

and sensitive balancing process” to determine whether a constitutional 

violation has occurred. 407 U.S. at 533. The right to a speedy trial “is 

‘amorphous,’ ‘slippery,’ and ‘necessarily relative.’” Vermont v. Brillon, 556 

U.S. 81, 89 (2009)(quoting Barker, 407 U.S., at 522)(quoting Beavers v. 

Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 87 (1905)). 

2 People v. Williams, 475 Mich. 245, 248, 716 N.W.2d 208, 211 (2006).

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5289 Filed 08/24/22 Page 24 of 56
- 25 -

The length of delay is a “triggering factor” because “until there is 

some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for 

inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 

530. Therefore, to trigger a speedy trial analysis, the accused must allege 

that the interval between the accusation and the trial has crossed the 

threshold dividing ordinary from presumptively prejudicial delay. Doggett v. 

United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651-52 (1992). Federal courts have 

generally found post-accusation delays that approach one year to be 

“presumptively prejudicial”. Id. 505 U.S. at 652, n. 1; United States v. 

Brown, 90 F. Supp. 2d 841, 846 (E.D. Mich. 2000). 

Petitioner claims that the delay between his arrest and trial date was 

18 months. Because the 18-month delay between the petitioner’s arrest 

and trial is presumptively prejudicial, this Court must engage in an 

examination of the remaining Barker factors. See U.S. v. Bass, 460 F.3d 

830, 836 (6th Cir. 2006).

With respect to the second Barker factor, the reasons for the delay, 

the Court must determine “whether the government or the criminal 

defendant is more to blame for [the] delay.” Maples v. Stegall, 427 F.3d 

1020, 1026 (6th Cir. 2005)(citing Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651). When 

evaluating a speedy trial claim, delays caused by the defense are to be 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5290 Filed 08/24/22 Page 25 of 56
- 26 -

weighed against the defendant. Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. at 90; See 

also U.S. v. Brown, 498 F. 3d 523, 531 (6th Cir. 2007).

In the present case, several delays were caused by motions filed by 

defense counsel or defense counsel’s requests for adjournments. Delays 

caused by defense counsel are also attributable to the defense for speedy 

trial purposes. Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. at 90-91. Moreover, the 

Michigan Court of Appeals reasonably balanced the Barker factors when 

finding that one of the delays was attributable to the defense because 

petitioner had stipulated to the continuance. See Stephenson v. Kramer, 

52 F. App’x. 325, 327 (9th Cir. 2002).

Some of the delays in taking the case to trial were due to problems

with rescheduling the trial due to the court’s docket. Although government 

delays motivated by bad faith, harassment, or attempts to seek a tactical 

advantage weigh heavily against the government under Barker, more 

neutral reasons such as negligence or overcrowded dockets weigh against 

the state less heavily. See Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. at 90; Barker, 407 

U.S. at 531; Maples, 427 F. 3d at 1026. 

Petitioner’s speedy trial claim also fails because there is no evidence 

on the record that any part of this delay was intentionally caused by the 

trial court or the prosecution. Norris v. v. Schotten, 146 F. 3d 314, 327-28 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5291 Filed 08/24/22 Page 26 of 56
- 27 -

(6th Cir. 2008). There is nothing in the record to indicate a “willful attempt” 

by the prosecution to delay the trial, Burns v. Lafler, 328 F. Supp. 2d 711, 

722 (E.D. Mich. 2004)(quoting Davis v. McLaughlin, 122 F. Supp. 2d 437, 

443 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)), nor is there any evidence that the prosecution 

intentionally delayed the trial to gain a tactical advantage over the 

petitioner. Id.; See also Brown, 498 F. 3d at 531. 

With regard to the third Barker factor, “[t]he defendant’s assertion of 

his speedy trial right ... is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in 

determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” Barker, 

407 U.S. at 531-32. A criminal defendant’s “failure to assert the right will 

make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial.” 

Id. 

Petitioner did not assert his right to a speedy trial until 16 months 

after he had been arrested. Petitioner’s 16-month delay in asserting his 

right to a speedy trial weighs against a finding that his right to a speedy 

trial was violated. See U.S. v. Flowers, 476 F. App’x. 55, 63 (6th Cir. 

2012).

Finally, petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on his speedy trial 

claim, because he has not shown that his defense was prejudiced by this 

delay. Burns, 328 F. Supp. 2d at 722. Of the four factors to be assessed in 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5292 Filed 08/24/22 Page 27 of 56
- 28 -

determining whether a defendant’s speedy trial rights have been violated, 

prejudice to the defendant is the most critical one. See Trigg v. State of 

Tenn., 507 F. 3d 949, 954 (6th Cir. 1975). 

Although the petitioner claims that the delays in bringing his case to 

trial caused him to lose certain witnesses and to lose his memory of some 

of the events, petitioner does not name any specific witnesses who were 

lost by the passage of time nor has he offered any specifics regarding his 

lost memory of the events. Speculation is insufficient to prove prejudice for 

a speedy trial claim. See United States v. Washam, 468 F. App’x. 568, 574 

(6th Cir. 2012)(“aside from speculating that certain unnamed alibi 

witnesses now have faded memories, Washam identifies no prejudice”). 

Finally, any prejudice to petitioner from his pre-trial incarceration “is 

too slight to constitute an unconstitutional denial of his right to a speedy 

trial,” in light of the fact that the other Barker factors do not support 

petitioner’s speedy trial claim. See Wells v. Petsock, 941 F. 2d 253, 259 

(3rd Cir. 1991). Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his third claim.

D. Claims # 4 and # 7. The ineffective assistance of trial counsel 

claims.

Petitioner next alleges he was denied the effective assistance of 

counsel.

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5293 Filed 08/24/22 Page 28 of 56
- 29 -

To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, petitioner 

must show that the state court’s conclusion regarding these claims was 

contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 

(2009). Strickland established a two-prong test for claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel: the petitioner must show (1) that counsel’s 

performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.

Petitioner initially argues that he was constructively denied the 

assistance of counsel because of trial counsel’s alleged deficiencies. 

The Supreme Court has recognized that in certain Sixth Amendment 

contexts, prejudice is presumed. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692. The “actual 

or constructive denial of the assistance of counsel altogether is legally 

presumed to result in prejudice. So are various kinds of state interference 

with counsel’s assistance.” Id.

Where defense counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s 

case to “meaningful adversarial testing,” there has been a constructive 

denial of counsel, and a defendant need not make a showing of prejudice 

to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Moss v. Hofbauer, 286 F. 3d 

851, 860 (6th Cir. 2002)(quoting United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5294 Filed 08/24/22 Page 29 of 56
- 30 -

659 (1984)). However, in order for a presumption of prejudice to arise 

based on an attorney’s failure to test the prosecutor’s case, so that 

reversal based on ineffective assistance of counsel is warranted without 

any inquiry into prejudice, the attorney’s failure to test the prosecutor’s 

case “must be complete.” Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002). 

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected this portion of petitioner’s 

claim:

As for the Cronic standard, we find no support in the record for the 

conclusion that defense counsel’s performance resulted in an entire 

failure to subject the prosecutor's case to meaningful adversarial 

testing. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659. As stated above, defendant in fact 

subjected all of the prosecution’s witnesses to extensive crossexamination, and displayed at least an adequate understanding of the 

issues involved in defending cases of this type.

People v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 14. 

In the present case, defense counsel filed several pre-trial motions, 

opposed the prosecution’s request to consolidate the cases, crossexamined the witnesses, made a motion for a directed verdict, and made a 

closing argument. Counsel’s alleged errors did not rise to the level of the 

constructive denial of counsel, because counsel actively represented 

petitioner at his trial. Moss, 286 F. 3d at 860-62. The Cronic presumption 

“applies only where defense counsel completely or entirely fails to oppose 

the prosecution throughout the guilt or penalty phase as a whole.” Benge 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5295 Filed 08/24/22 Page 30 of 56
- 31 -

v. Johnson, 474 F.3d 236, 247 (6th Cir. 2007)(citing Bell, 535 U.S. at 697). 

Counsel’s alleged failures do not amount to a complete failure to provide a 

defense. The presumption of prejudice therefore does not apply and 

petitioner would be required to show that he was actually prejudiced by 

counsel’s alleged omissions in order to obtain habeas relief. Id.

Petitioner initially claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to 

obtain an expert on the subject of forensic interviews and child sexual 

abuse victims and perpetrators in order to be able to effectively crossexamine the witnesses and possibly to call such an expert to testify 

concerning problems with the interviews of the victims. Petitioner also 

claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an expert on DNA 

to challenge the prosecution expert’s findings. Petitioner also claims that 

counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a computer expert. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected these claims:

The victims in this case testified in open court about 

defendant’s sexual abuse. The content of any forensic 

interviews was not admitted into evidence, nor did prosecution 

experts testify at length about forensic interviewing. Unlike the 

case upon which defendant relies, People v. Owens, 

unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, 

decided November 2, 2010 (Docket No. 288074), 2010 WL 

4320396,7 the prosecution in this case did not make the 

“forceful argument” that the victims could not have been 

coached because they underwent the forensic interview 

process. Unpub op at 3. Further, reference to forensic 

interviewing was not, as it was in Owens, used bolster the 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5296 Filed 08/24/22 Page 31 of 56
- 32 -

credibility of the victim. Id. at 4. Instead, here, to the extent that 

forensic interviewing was even mentioned at trial, it was merely 

mentioned as part of the police investigation and as leading to 

the addition of TH’s charges against defendant.

********************************************************

Here, the record reflects that AH and TH volunteered their 

allegations to caregivers, and did not initially make them in the 

context of a forensic interview or indeed while being 

questioned at all. As for KB, she was questioned by her mother 

concerning the events of the weekend she spent with 

defendant. Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined the 

victims about their allegations, and they provided detailed and 

consistent answers. No attempt was made by the prosecution 

to buttress their credibility through testimony of a forensic 

interviewer or reference to the forensic interviewing process. 

Unlike the defense counsel in Owens, defendant’s counsel did 

not display a “disturbing” lack of knowledge of the question of 

child sexual abuse victims. Unpub op at 2. For example, 

defense counsel questioned AH about whether she felt 

mistreated by defendant because she didn’t receive as many 

privileges as the other children in the house as well as whether 

she had heard allegations from anyone else about defendant 

including whether she had spoken to any of the other victims 

about defendant’s abuse. Defense counsel further attempted to 

impeach AH regarding a period of time where she attempted to 

recant her allegations to a police detective, and argued in 

closing argument that AH had been led to believe that 

recanting her story would get her in legal trouble. Counsel also 

cross-examined all the victims about possible influences to 

their testimony, and argued that the victims behaved 

inconsistently toward defendant following his arrest.

As for the professional witnesses, defense counsel elicited 

testimony regarding a mix-up in DNA samples sent to the lab, 

as well as testimony that SH had never been tested to be 

excluded from the DNA results, and that the partial profile of 

AH was matched at only 8 locations. Defense counsel also 

argued that the prosecution did not present evidence that the 

victims were suffering from typical reactions to sexual abuse 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5297 Filed 08/24/22 Page 32 of 56
- 33 -

and had not seen a counselor or psychologist. In so doing, 

counsel displayed an awareness of the issues involved with 

child sexual abuse victims and their testimony, rather than 

displaying the “disturbing” lack of awareness of these issues 

displayed by defense counsel in Owens. Owens, Unpub op at 

2.

While defense counsel arguably could have presented expert 

testimony on how children’s testimony regarding sexual abuse 

may be influenced by the adults around them, we are not 

convinced that counsel’s failure to do so rendered his 

performance below an objective standard of reasonableness,

especially in light of his extensive cross-examination of the 

victims. We do not measure trial counsel’s performance with 

the benefit of hindsight. People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181, 

188, 190, 774 N.W.2d 714 (2009).

Further, defendant cannot show that any failure on the part of 

defense counsel to retain or call expert witnesses was 

outcome-determinative. As stated above, counsel engaged in 

extensive cross-examination of the victims and professional 

witnesses, and was successful at raising issues such as the 

mishandling of DNA evidence and the victims’ post-abuse 

behavior toward defendant. All three of the victims testified 

clearly and precisely about defendant’s sexual abuse; 

moreover, the record does not contain evidence that would 

support an inference that all three of the victims were coached 

or coerced to provide such testimony. The testimony of an 

expert witness on possible influences on the victim’s testimony 

would not have been reasonably likely to result in a jury 

concluding that all three of these victims were lying. As the 

victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to result in conviction, we 

conclude that defendant additionally cannot demonstrate 

prejudice under the Strickland standard.

People v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 12–14 (additional citation 

omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5298 Filed 08/24/22 Page 33 of 56
- 34 -

The Michigan Court of Appeals also rejected the claim that counsel 

was ineffective in failing to call a computer expert:

Further, defendant claims that his counsel failed to engage a 

computer expert, but does not elaborate on how a computer 

expert would have aided his defense and provides no proof 

that an expert witness would have testified in his favor. 

Defendant thus has not established the factual predicate for his 

claim of ineffective assistance.

People v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 15.

A habeas petitioner’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to call an expert witness cannot be based on speculation. See Keith 

v. Mitchell, 455 F. 3d 662, 672 (6th Cir. 2006). Petitioner has offered no 

evidence to this Court that there was an expert who would have testified 

favorably for petitioner that the protocol for interviewing minors in sexual 

misconduct cases was not followed, that the DNA results were skewed, or 

that there were problems with the evidence seized from petitioner’s 

computer. He is not entitled to relief on his claim.

Petitioner was in any event not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to 

have an expert witness testify on the susceptibility of child victims and the 

importance of following forensic protocol when interviewing young 

children, because this was much less of a concern in this case involving 

victims who were sixteen, thirteen, and twelve years old at the time of 

petitioner’s trial and only a year or two younger when most of these 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5299 Filed 08/24/22 Page 34 of 56
- 35 -

incidents occurred. See, e.g., Spaulding v. Larson, 704 F. App’x. 475, 483 

(6th Cir. 2017).

With respect to the DNA issue, the Michigan Court of Appeals noted 

that counsel cross-examined the DNA experts and obtained admissions 

from them that there were flaws with the DNA testing. 

The Supreme Court has noted that: “[I]n many instances crossexamination will be sufficient to expose defects in an expert’s 

presentation.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 (2011). A defense 

counsel’s decision to cross-examine a prosecutor’s experts concerning 

their findings, instead of calling an expert witness for the defense to 

challenge that expert’s conclusions, has at times been held to be a 

reasonable trial strategy that defeats a habeas petitioner’s ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel claim. See Tinsley v. Million, 399 F.3d 796, 806 

(6th Cir. 2005); See also Jackson v. McQuiggin, 553 F. App’x. 575, 580-82 

(6th Cir. 2014).

Petitioner next claims that counsel’s cross-examination of the three 

victims was deficient. 

“Courts generally entrust cross-examination techniques, like other 

matters of trial strategy, to the professional discretion of counsel.” Dell v. 

Straub, 194 F. Supp. 2d 629, 651 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “Impeachment 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5300 Filed 08/24/22 Page 35 of 56
- 36 -

strategy is a matter of trial tactics, and tactical decisions are not ineffective 

assistance of counsel simply because in retrospect better tactics may have 

been available.” Id. 

The record establishes that counsel cross-examined the victims, 

particularly about inconsistencies between their preliminary examination 

testimony and their trial testimony, confronted the victims about their postassault behavior towards petitioner was inconsistent with them being 

sexually assaulted, obtained an admission from AH that she attempted to 

recant her allegations, and brought up these issues in his closing 

argument. 

In the present case, defense counsel’s performance did not 

constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where the record shows that 

defense counsel carefully cross-examined the victims and in his closing 

argument emphasized the weaknesses in their testimony. See Krist v. 

Foltz, 804 F. 2d 944, 948-49 (6th Cir. 1986); Millender v. Adams, 187 F. 

Supp. 2d 852, 872 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “Although other attorneys might 

have reached a different conclusion about the value of cross-examining 

[the victims] in greater detail, counsel’s strategic choice not to further 

cross-examine the victims was “‘within the wide range of reasonable 

professional assistance.’” See Moss v. Hofbauer, 286 F. 3d 851, 864 (6th 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5301 Filed 08/24/22 Page 36 of 56
- 37 -

Cir. 2002)(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). Finally, petitioner has 

failed to identify how additional impeachment of the victims would have 

affected the jury’s decision. Defense counsel did not perform ineffectively 

by not more forcefully cross-examining the victims, particularly when the 

effect of further probing was entirely speculative on petitioner’s part. See 

Jackson v. Bradshaw, 681 F.3d 753, 764-65 (6th Cir. 2012). 

Finally, petitioner in his Standard 43 pro se appellate brief alleged 

numerous other deficiencies on the part of defense counsel. These were 

rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals:

Finally, much of defendant’s brief alleges conduct that he 

deems unfair or illegal on the part of the arresting officer, 

delays in receiving a discovery packet from the prosecution, 

disorganization on the part of his defense counsel, failure of his 

defense counsel to demand a bench trial, and inadequate 

representation at his preliminary exam. Defendant has not 

established the factual predicate for these claims, and has not 

demonstrated that, if true, they were outcome determinative[,].

People v. Alexander, 2013 WL 5663122, at * 15 (internal citations omitted). 

Conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, without 

any evidentiary support, do not provide a basis for habeas relief. See

3 Standard 4 of Administrative Order 2004-6, 471 Mich. cii (2004), “explicitly provides 

that a pro se brief may be filed within 84 days of the filing of the brief by the appellant’s 

counsel, and may be filed with accompanying motions.” Ware v. Harry, 636 F. Supp. 

2d 574, 594, n. 6 (E.D. Mich. 2008). 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5302 Filed 08/24/22 Page 37 of 56
- 38 -

Workman v. Bell, 178 F.3d 759, 771 (6th Cir. 1998). Petitioner is not entitled 

to relief on these claims because they are conclusory and unsupported. 

Moreover, petitioner failed to show that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to demand a bench trial because petitioner has made no 

showing that the judge or the prosecutor would have agreed to a bench 

trial, as required by M.C.L.A. 763.3(1). See e.g. United States v. Bass, 712 

F. Supp. 2d 931, 938 (D. Neb. 2010), rev’d on other grds, 655 F.3d 758 

(8th Cir. 2011). Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his fourth and seventh 

claims.

E. Claim # 5. The evidentiary issues claim.

Petitioner next claims that the trial court erred in admitting various 

pieces of evidence that was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. 

It is “not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine statecourt determinations on state-court questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 

U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). A federal court is limited in federal habeas review 

to deciding whether a state court conviction violates the Constitution, laws, 

or treaties of the United States. Id. Thus, errors in the application of state 

law, especially rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence, are usually 

not questioned by a federal habeas court. Seymour v. Walker, 224 F. 3d 

542, 552 (6th Cir. 2000).

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5303 Filed 08/24/22 Page 38 of 56
- 39 -

Petitioner’s claim that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of 

irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence cannot form the basis for habeas 

relief, because it involves a state law evidentiary issue. See Hall v. 

Vasbinder, 551 F. Supp. 2d 652, 676 (E.D. Mich. 2008); rev’d on other 

grds 563 F.3d 222 (6th Cir. 2009); See also Oliphant v. Koehler, 451 F. 

Supp. 1305, 1308 (W.D. Mich. 1978). 

Petitioner’s claim that this evidence should have been excluded 

under M.R.E. 403 for being more prejudicial than probative does not entitle 

petitioner to habeas relief. The Sixth Circuit observed that “[t]he Supreme 

Court has never held (except perhaps within the capital sentencing 

context) that a state trial court’s admission of relevant evidence, no matter 

how prejudicial, amounted to a violation of due process.” Blackmon v. 

Booker, 696 F. 3d 536, 551 (6th Cir. 2012)(emphasis original). 

To the extent that petitioner argues that the state court violated 

M.R.E. 404(b) or any other provision of state law by admitting improper 

character evidence or evidence of prior bad acts, such a claim is noncognizable on habeas review. See Bey v. Bagley, 500 F. 3d 514, 519 (6th 

Cir. 2007); Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72 (Supreme Court’s habeas powers did 

not permit Court to reverse state court conviction based on their belief that 

the state trial judge erred in ruling that prior injury evidence was admissible 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5304 Filed 08/24/22 Page 39 of 56
- 40 -

as bad acts evidence under California law). The admission of this “prior 

bad acts” or “other acts” evidence against petitioner at his state trial does 

not entitle him to habeas relief, because there is no clearly established 

Supreme Court law which holds that a state violates a habeas petitioner’s 

due process rights by admitting propensity evidence in the form of “prior 

bad acts” evidence. See Bugh v. Mitchell, 329 F. 3d 496, 512 (6th Cir. 

2003). 

Petitioner also claims that the court erred in admitting statements 

that petitioner made to a detective during a pre-interview for a polygraph 

examination. 

The Supreme Court has never held that testimony or evidence which 

implies the results of a polygraph or similar test renders a criminal 

defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair, in violation of the Due Process 

Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Maldonado v. 

Wilson, 416 F.3d 470, 477 (6th Cir. 2005). To grant habeas relief to 

petitioner “would necessarily imply that the Constitution requires all states 

to have rules of evidence precluding some testimony about truth tests.” Id., 

at 478. Because no Supreme Court precedent demands this result, the 

Michigan Court of Appeals’ rejection of petitioner’s claim was not 

unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Id. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5305 Filed 08/24/22 Page 40 of 56
- 41 -

Moreover, the Sixth Circuit on direct review of federal criminal 

convictions has “refused to impose a per se prohibition against polygraph 

evidence, and the mere mention of the words ‘polygraph examination’ 

does not entitle a defendant to a new trial.” United States v. Odom, 13 F. 

3d 949, 957 (6th Cir. 1994). 

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected this claim because there 

was no mention made of the polygraph examination or petitioner’s 

answers to the polygraph examiner. The Michigan Court of Appeals also 

ruled that trial court properly concluded that defendant’s statements were 

admissible as admissions of a party-opponent. The Michigan Court of 

Appeals also noted that none of petitioner’s comments were inculpatory. 

People v. Alexander, No. 2013 WL 5663122, at * 16. In light of the fact 

that no mention was made of the polygraph examination or results, and 

that petitioner did not make any inculpatory remarks, petitioner is not 

entitled to relief on his claim.

Petitioner lastly contends that the trial court violated his right to 

present a defense when he excluded evidence that petitioner had sexual 

relations with SH and did not enjoy oral sex. The Michigan Court of 

Appeals rejected this claim because it was cumulative of SH’s testimony 

that she had sex with petitioner three days before his arrest and he did not 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5306 Filed 08/24/22 Page 41 of 56
- 42 - 

perform oral sex on her. People v. Alexander, No. 2013 WL 5663122, at * 

17.

In light of the fact that evidence that petitioner did not enjoy 

performing oral sex would have been cumulative of SH’s testimony, its 

exclusion from evidence did not violate petitioner’s right to present a 

defense or to a fair trial. See Washington v. Renico, 455 F.3d 722, 728-29 

(6th Cir. 2006). Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his fifth claim. 

 F. Claim # 6. Cumulative error. 

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas relief because of 

cumulative error.

The cumulative weight of alleged constitutional trial errors in a state 

prosecution does not warrant federal habeas relief, because there is no 

clearly established federal law permitting or requiring the cumulation of 

distinct constitutional claims to grant habeas relief. Moore v. Parker, 425 F. 

3d 250, 256 (6th Cir. 2005). Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief 

based on cumulative error. Id.

G. The claims in the amended petition.

Petitioner raises three claims in his amended petition: (1) petitioner

claims he was denied his right to self-representation, (2) his sentencing 

guidelines were incorrectly scored, and (3) appellate counsel was 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5307 Filed 08/24/22 Page 42 of 56
- 43 - 

ineffective for failing to raise these claims on his appeal of right and was 

also ineffective for failing to raise several other claims on his appeal of 

right and for improperly raising several other claims.

Respondent contends that the claims raised in the amended habeas 

petition are procedurally defaulted because petitioner raised these claims 

for the first time in his post-conviction motion and failed to show cause and 

prejudice for failing to raise these claims in his appeal of right, as required 

by M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3). 

The Michigan Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s post-conviction 

appeal on the ground that “the defendant has failed to meet the burden of 

establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).” People v. 

Alexander, 503 Mich. at 947.

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s post-conviction 

appeal in a form order “because the defendant failed to establish that the 

trial court erred in denying the motion for relief from judgment.” People v. 

Alexander, No. 342398 (Mich.Ct.App. July 11, 2018)(ECF No. 22-45, 

PageID. 5258). These orders, however, did not refer to subsection (D)(3) 

nor did they mention petitioner’s failure to raise his claims on his direct 

appeal as their rationale for rejecting his post-conviction appeals. 

Because the form orders in this case are ambiguous as to whether they 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5308 Filed 08/24/22 Page 43 of 56
- 44 -

refer to procedural default or a denial of post-conviction relief on the 

merits, the orders are unexplained. See Guilmette v. Howes, 624 F.3d 

286, 291 (6th Cir. 2010). This Court must “therefore look to the last 

reasoned state court opinion to determine the basis for the state court’s 

rejection” of petitioner’s claims. Id. 

The Macomb County Circuit Court judge, in rejecting petitioner’s 

post-conviction claims, concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate 

good cause, as required by M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3), for failing to raise these 

issues on his appeal of right. People v. Alexander, No. 2009-5130, 2009-

5132, 2009-5135, * 4-5, 11 (Macomb Cty.Cir.Ct., Aug. 16, 2017)(ECF No. 

22-36, PageID. 4389-90, 4396). Because the trial court judge denied 

petitioner post-conviction relief based on the procedural grounds stated in 

M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3), petitioner’s self-representation and sentencing 

guidelines claims are procedurally defaulted pursuant to M.C.R. 

6.508(D)(3). See Ivory v. Jackson, 509 F. 3d 284, 292-93 (6th Cir. 2007).

Petitioner could not have procedurally defaulted his ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel claim, because state post-conviction 

review was the first opportunity that he had to raise this claim. See 

Guilmette, 624 F. 3d at 291. However, for the reasons stated below, 

petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim.

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5309 Filed 08/24/22 Page 44 of 56
- 45 -

Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as 

cause to excuse the procedural default of his self-representation and 

sentencing guidelines claims. Petitioner, however, has not shown that 

appellate counsel was ineffective. 

It is well-established that a criminal defendant does not have a 

constitutional right to have appellate counsel raise every non-frivolous 

issue on appeal. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983). The 

United States Supreme Court has explained:

“For judges to second-guess reasonable professional 

judgments and impose on appointed counsel a duty to raise 

every ‘colorable’ claim suggested by a client would disserve 

the ... goal of vigorous and effective advocacy.... Nothing in 

the Constitution or our interpretation of that document requires 

such a standard.”

Id. at 463 U.S. at 754. 

Moreover, “[A] brief that raises every colorable issue runs the risk of 

burying good arguments-those that, in the words of the great advocate 

John W. Davis, ‘go for the jugular,’-in a verbal mound made up of strong 

and weak contentions.” Id. at 463 U.S. at 753 (citations omitted). 

The Supreme Court has subsequently noted that:

Notwithstanding Barnes, it is still possible to bring a Strickland

claim based on [appellate] counsel’s failure to raise a 

particular claim [on appeal], but it is difficult to demonstrate 

that counsel was incompetent.”

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5310 Filed 08/24/22 Page 45 of 56
- 46 -

Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000).

Strategic and tactical choices regarding which issues to pursue on 

appeal are “properly left to the sound professional judgment of counsel.” 

United States v. Perry, 908 F.2d 56, 59 (6th Cir. 1990). In fact, “the 

hallmark of effective appellate advocacy” is the “process of ‘winnowing out 

weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on’ those more likely to 

prevail.” Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. at 536 (quoting Barnes, 463 U.S. at 

751-52). “Generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than 

those presented will the presumption of effective assistance of appellate 

counsel be overcome.” Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F. 3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 

2002). Appellate counsel may deliver deficient performance and prejudice 

a defendant by omitting a “dead-bang winner,” which is defined as an 

issue which was obvious from the trial record and would have resulted in a 

reversal on appeal. See Meade v. Lavigne, 265 F. Supp. 2d 849, 870 

(E.D. Mich. 2003). 

Petitioner has failed to show that appellate counsel’s performance 

fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance by 

omitting the claims that petitioner raised for the first time in his postconviction motion for relief from judgment. Appellate counsel filed a forty 

nine page appellate brief that raised six claims, which are basically the 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5311 Filed 08/24/22 Page 46 of 56
- 47 -

first six claims raised by petitioner in his original petition.4 Petitioner has 

not shown that appellate counsel’s strategy in presenting these four 

claims and not raising other claims was deficient or unreasonable. 

Moreover, for the reasons stated by the Assistant Michigan Attorney 

General in his answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, none of the 

claims raised by petitioner in his post-conviction motion were “dead bang 

winners.” Because the defaulted claims are not “dead bang winners,” 

petitioner has failed to establish cause for his procedural default of failing 

to raise these claims on direct review. See McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F. 

3d 674, 682-83 (6th Cir. 2000). 

Because these post-conviction claims lack merit, this Court must 

reject any independent ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim 

raised by petitioner. “[A]ppellate counsel cannot be found to be ineffective 

for ‘failure to raise an issue that lacks merit.’” Shaneberger v. Jones, 615 

F. 3d 448, 452 (6th Cir. 2010). 

More importantly, this Court notes that in addition to the appellate 

brief filed by appellate counsel, petitioner filed a supplemental Standard 4 

pro per brief on his appeal of right before the Michigan Court of Appeals.5 

4 See Defendant-Appellant’s Brief on Appeal, ECF No. 10-12, PageID. 803-861.

5 See Defendant-Appellant’s Pro Per Brief on Appeal, ECF 10-12, PageID. 881-901. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5312 Filed 08/24/22 Page 47 of 56
- 48 -

Although petitioner raised several claims, he did not present any of the 

issues that he would subsequently raise for the first time on his postconviction motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner took advantage of 

the opportunity pursuant to the Michigan Court Rules to file a 

supplemental appellate brief to raise claims that had not been raised by 

his appellate counsel, yet failed to include his self-representation and 

sentencing guidelines claims in his supplemental brief. 

Petitioner has failed to offer any credible reasons for failing to raise 

these claims in his supplemental pro per brief that he filed as part of his 

direct appeal. Petitioner argued both in the state courts and before this 

Court that he could not raise his self-representation claim earlier because 

he did not have the transcript from the preliminary examination, where he 

claims he stated he wanted to represent himself. The judge on postconviction review rejected this argument because petitioner’s own exhibit 

that he attached to his motion for relief from judgment showed that the 

preliminary examination transcript had been in the state district court file 

since April 14, 2009, thus, petitioner and his appellate counsel could have 

had access to this transcript. People v. Alexander, No. 2009-5130, 2009-

5132, 2009-5135, * 5 (ECF No. 22-36, PageID. 4390).

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5313 Filed 08/24/22 Page 48 of 56
- 49 - 

Petitioner has offered no good reason for his failure to include his 

self-representation and sentencing guidelines claims in his supplemental 

pro per brief on his direct appeal. He has failed to establish cause to 

excuse the default of these claims. See Rockwell v. Palmer, 559 F. Supp. 

2d 817, 834 (W.D. Mich. 2008)(habeas petitioner did not show any cause 

for his failure to raise on direct appeal his claim of ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel, where petitioner had filed two briefs on his own behalf raising 

other claims that had not been asserted by his appellate counsel, but he 

offered no explanation for his failure to raise the ineffective assistance 

claim at the same time); See also Sheffield v. Burt, 731 F. App’x. 438, 442 

(6th Cir. 2018)(petitioner failed to show cause under M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3) 

for failing to raise issues on direct appeal; “And as the Michigan trial court 

and the government note, Sheffield had the opportunity to raise any issues 

in his Standard 4 brief on direct appeal that he felt his appellate counsel 

should have raised. He did not raise the issue”).

In the present case, petitioner has failed to show cause to excuse his 

default. Because petitioner has not demonstrated any cause for his 

procedural default, it is unnecessary for the court to reach the prejudice 

issue. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. at 533. 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5314 Filed 08/24/22 Page 49 of 56
- 50 - 

Additionally, petitioner has not presented any new reliable evidence 

to support any assertion of innocence which would allow this Court to 

consider his defaulted claims as a ground for a writ of habeas corpus in 

spite of the procedural default. Petitioner’s sufficiency of evidence claim 

(Claim # 1) is insufficient to invoke the actual innocence doctrine to the 

procedural default rule. See Malcum v. Burt, 276 F. Supp. 2d 664, 677 

(E.D. Mich. 2003). 

Finally, assuming that petitioner had established cause for the 

default of his claims, he would be unable to satisfy the prejudice prong of 

the exception to the procedural default rule, because his claims would not 

entitle him to relief. The cause and prejudice exception is conjunctive, 

requiring proof of both cause and prejudice. See Matthews v. Ishee, 486 F. 

3d 883, 891 (6th Cir. 2007). For the reasons stated by the Macomb

County Circuit Court in rejecting petitioner’s post-conviction claims, and by 

the Assistant Michigan Attorney General in his answer to the amended 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner failed to show that his 

procedurally defaulted claims have any merit. Petitioner is not entitled to 

habeas relief on his procedurally defaulted claims.

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5315 Filed 08/24/22 Page 50 of 56
- 51 -

Finally, petitioner also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective 

for failing to raise several other claims on his appeal of right and for 

improperly presenting several other claims.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to the 

effective assistance of appellate counsel both on appeals of right, See 

Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396-397 (1985), and on first-tier 

discretionary appeals. Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 609–10 (2005). 

Nonetheless, court appointed counsel does not have a constitutional duty 

to raise every non-frivolous issue requested by a defendant. Jones v. 

Barnes, 463 U.S. at 751. A habeas court reviewing an ineffective 

assistance of appellate counsel claim must defer twice: first to appellate 

counsel’s decision not to raise an issue and secondly, to the state court’s 

determination that appellate counsel was not ineffective. Woods v. 

Etherton, 578 U.S. 113, 119 (2016)(per curiam).

Petitioner first argues that appellate counsel failed to raise a claim 

that petitioner’s right to be present at all critical stages of trial was violated 

when the judge gave the jurors a supplemental instruction without 

petitioner being present. Petitioner also argues that although appellate 

counsel did raise an improper joinder claim, which makes up petitioner’s 

second claim, counsel failed to argue that it was improper to join the 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5316 Filed 08/24/22 Page 51 of 56
- 52 -

possession with intent to deliver cocaine charge with the criminal sexual 

conduct and other sexual misconduct charges. 

Respondent argues that appellate counsel was not ineffective for 

failing to raise these two claims because neither issue had been preserved 

in the trial court through an objection. (ECF No. 21, PageID. 1472-73). 

Petitioner waived review of his right to be present when his attorney 

agreed to the jury instruction without his client’s presence. (ECF No. 22-

38, PageID. 4234). The Michigan Court of Appeals noted on its own that 

petitioner did not object in the state court to the cocaine charge being 

joined with the various sexual misconduct charges. People v. Alexander, 

2013 WL 5663122, at * 8, n. 4. 

Trial counsel’s failure to object to either issue means that plain error 

review would have applied to these claims; “appellate counsel’s decision 

not to raise a waived issue was reasonable[.]” Hoffner v. Bradshaw, 622 

F.3d 487, 506 (6th Cir. 2010).

Petitioner next contends that appellate counsel was deficient in his 

handling of the speedy trial claim that he raised on petitioner’s appeal of 

right. Petitioner notes that appellate counsel incorrectly attributed a seven 

day period between January 13, 2010 to January 20, 2010 to the defense, 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5317 Filed 08/24/22 Page 52 of 56
- 53 -

when the prosecution conceded that this time period should have been 

attributable to the prosecution.

The Michigan Court of Appeals identified this time period in its 

analysis of the speedy trial claim and incorrectly attributed it to the 

defense, but the Michigan Court of Appeals nonetheless concluded that 

“the bulk of the period between December 04, 2009 and May 11, 2010, 

158 days, was attributable to the defendant.” People v. Alexander, 2013 

WL 5663122, at * 10. Even if this seven-day period incorrectly attributed to 

the defense was removed from the analysis, that would still leave 151 

days attributed to petitioner. Moreover, for the reasons stated both by the 

Michigan Court of Appeals and this Court, petitioner failed to show that his 

right to a speedy trial was violated. Because petitioner is unable to show 

that the factors enunciated in Barker supported a finding that his right to a 

speedy trial was violated, petitioner is unable to show that appellate 

counsel’s minor mistake in presenting the speedy trial claim was 

ineffective. See, e.g., Everett v. Bergh, 477 F. App’x. 325, 328 (6th Cir. 

2012)(“Everett cannot show that the Barker factors so favored him that his 

appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a constitutional 

speedy-trial claim. We therefore cannot consider the claim here.”). 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5318 Filed 08/24/22 Page 53 of 56
- 54 -

Petitioner lastly claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for 

failing to make any argument challenging the sufficiency of evidence to 

convict petitioner on the possession of sexually abusive materials charge, 

even though counsel mentioned the conviction in the heading of the 

sufficiency of evidence claim in his appellate brief.

Petitioner failed to show that the evidence was insufficient to convict 

on this charge. Accordingly, appellate counsel was not ineffective for 

failing to challenge the sufficiency of evidence for this claim on petitioner’s 

appeal of right. See Hand v. Houk, 871 F.3d 390, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2017). 

Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his final claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied with prejudice.

The Court denies a certificate of appealability. In order to obtain a 

certificate of appealability, a prisoner must make a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate 

this denial, the applicant is required to show that reasonable jurists could 

debate whether, or agree that, the petition should have been resolved in a 

different manner, or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-

84 (2000). When a district court rejects a habeas petitioner’s constitutional 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5319 Filed 08/24/22 Page 54 of 56
- 55 -

claims on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable 

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

to be debatable or wrong. Id. at 484. Likewise, when a district court 

denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the 

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims, a certificate of appealability 

should issue, and an appeal of the district court’s order may be taken, if 

the petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 

the petitioner states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling. Id. at 484. “The district court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to 

the applicant.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 11(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. 

§ 2254.

The Court denies petitioner a certificate of appealability because he 

failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal 

constitutional right. However, although jurists of reason would not debate 

this Court’s resolution of petitioner’s claims, the issues are not frivolous; 

therefore, an appeal could be taken in good faith and petitioner may 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp. 

2d 750, 765 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5320 Filed 08/24/22 Page 55 of 56
- 56 - 

V. ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is 

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED leave to 

appeal in forma pauperis.

Dated: August 24, 2022

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

August 24, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also 

on Duncan Alexander #785862, Kinross Correctional Facility, 

4533 W. Industrial Park Drive, Kincheloe, MI 49786. 

s/Brianna Sauve

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:14-cv-13430-GCS-MKM ECF No. 26, PageID.5321 Filed 08/24/22 Page 56 of 56