UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ABDIAS ANTOINE, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 14-14933 

 HON TERRENCE G. BERG 

 v. 

THOMAS MACKIE. 

 Respondent. 

______________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan 

prisoner Abdias Antoine1 (“Petitioner”) was convicted in Calhoun County Circuit 

Court in 2012 for assault with intent to commit murder and sentenced to 285 

months to 40 years. (See Dkt. 1, pp. 1-2.) Petitioner’s habeas application raises two 

claims: (1) his due process rights were violated when a juror’s question and 

subsequent questioning by the Court and the prosecutor drew attention to the fact 

that he was wearing a leg restraint that Petitioner described as required by “rules 

and regulations” of the jail “when you come to court”; and (2) appellate counsel 

provided ineffective assistance for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of 

 

1 When Petitioner filed his habeas petition, he was incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility 

in St. Louis, Michigan, but has since been transferred to the Oaks Correctional Facility. (See Dkt. 

12.) The only proper respondent in a habeas case is the habeas Petitioner’s custodian, which in the 

case of an incarcerated habeas Petitioner would be the warden of the facility where the Petitioner is 

incarcerated. See Edwards v. Johns, 450 F. Supp. 2d 755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006); See also Rule 2(a), 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Thomas Mackie is the warden of the Oaks Correctional Facility, the Court 

substitutes him as the proper respondent in the caption. 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 538
2 

counsel against Petitioner’s trial counsel for failing to object to the leg restraint 

during trial. (Id. at 6.) 

 Respondent filed a response to the habeas petition on July 7, 2015. (Dkt. 13.) 

On August 14, 2015, Petitioner filed his reply brief. (Dkt. 15.) The Court has 

carefully reviewed and considered the pleadings. For the reasons stated below, the 

Court will DENY WITH PREJUDICE the application for a writ of habeas corpus 

and the Court will also DENY Petitioner a certificate of appealability and leave to 

appeal in forma pauperis. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder following a 

jury trial in the Calhoun County Circuit Court. (Dkt. 1, p. 1.) Petitioner timely 

appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that: (1) his state 

and federal rights to due process were denied because he wore a “leg brace” during 

trial that was the subject of a juror question; (2) resentencing is required because 

the trial court did not correctly score prior record variables; and (3) appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

against Petitioner’s trial counsel for not objecting to the leg restraints at trial. 

People v. Antoine, No. 310544, 2013 WL 4404321, at *1-3 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 

2013). 

 The Court upheld Petitioner’s conviction, but granted Petitioner some relief 

by vacating his sentence. Id. at 4. Applying plain error review, the Court found that 

Petitioner had not preserved the shackling issue because Petitioner “did not 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 2 of 19 Pg ID 539
3 

challenge the trial court’s use of shackles” and to the extent that there was error, 

Petitioner invited the error “by informing the jury that he was restrained through 

unsolicited comments.” Id. at 3. 

 Moreover, the Court found that appellate counsel was not ineffective because 

“appellate counsel’s decision not to assert that trial counsel was ineffective for 

allowing [Petitioner] to be restrained in the presence of the jury was objectively 

reasonable” and that appellate counsel “need not make meritless arguments.” Id. 

 On October 4, 2013, Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal the 

court of appeals’ decision with the Michigan Supreme Court. (Dkt. 14, Ex. 8, p. 2.) 

The Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s application on December 23, 2013 

because the Court was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed.” (Id. at 1.) On March 3, 2014, Petitioner was resentenced to sixteen to 

forty years in prison. (Dkt. 14, Tr. 3/3/14). Petitioner filed this habeas petition on 

December 23, 2014. (Dkt. 1.) 

 The following summary of the facts of this case is taken word-for-word from 

the Michigan Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming Petitioner’s conviction. Antoine, 

2013 WL 4404321, at *1. This summary is presumed correct on habeas review 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F. 3d 410, 413 (6th 

Cir. 2009). 

Antoine testified that in early 2011, Tina Weinert requested that he come 

visit her in Michigan. Antoine testified that he stayed at Weinert’s house for 

about two weeks. Weinert testified that she and Antoine fought in July 2011, 

and Antoine was sent to jail. According to Weinert, Antoine warned her not to 

testify against him or have him sent to jail. 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 3 of 19 Pg ID 540
4 

Weinert testified that in August 2011, she was sitting outside of her 

apartment, watching her son play. Ian Walker, Weinert’s boyfriend, testified 

that he was inside the apartment, watching Weinert’s daughter. According to 

Weinert, she saw Antoine drive past inside of a car. Weinert testified that she 

panicked and tried to get her son to go inside. While trying to get her son to 

the apartment, Weinert noticed Antoine attempting to move stealthily on 

foot. Weinert testified that she had just put her son into the apartment when 

she saw Antoine approaching her from behind a dumpster while drawing a 

butcher’s knife. 

Weinert testified that Antoine asked her whether she remembered him, 

began running at her, and stabbed her in the calf, arms, ribs, and stomach. 

Walker testified that he heard Weinert screaming, went to the door, and saw 

Antoine “punching” Weinert with a knife. Walker testified that when he went 

out to help Weinert, Antoine threw the knife down and fled. 

Antoine testified that he never stabbed or injured Weinert, and that after he 

left the jail, he stayed with family in Washington D.C. and Florida. Antoine 

testified that Weinert was falsely accusing him. 

Antoine, 2013 WL 4404321, at *1. 

 Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on two of the three grounds 

considered by the Michigan Court of Appeals: 

I. [Petitioner] was denied his state and federal constitutional 

right to due process because he wore a leg brace during trial, 

which was the subject of question submitted by a juror and 

because the prosecution cannot demonstrate beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the leg brace did not contribute to the 

verdict. 

II. [Petitioner] was denied effective assistance of counsel, depriving 

him of his federal and state protected constitutional rights, 

where appellate counsel failed to raise a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel against trial counsel in connection with 

performance during trial, requiring that [a]n evidentiary 

hearing be granted. 

(Dkt. 1, p. 3.) 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 4 of 19 Pg ID 541
5 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 Petitioner challenges his 2012 conviction for assault with intent to commit 

murder in his habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which 

provides that: 

 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 that reached by the United States 

Supreme Court (“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 

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

“unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law” 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. 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 5 of 19 Pg ID 542
6 

The Supreme Court has explained that “a federal court’s collateral review of 

a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our 

federal system.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). The “AEDPA thus 

imposes a ‘highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,’ and 

‘demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.’” Renico v. 

Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333, n. 7 

(1997); Woodford v. Viscotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam)). “[A] state court’s 

determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 

‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” 

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 

U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). 

The Supreme Court has emphasized “that even a strong case for relief does 

not mean the state court’s contrary conclusion was unreasonable.” Id. at 102 (citing 

Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003)). Furthermore, pursuant to § 2254(d), “a 

habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or...could have 

supported, the state court’s decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible 

fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent 

with the holding in a prior decision” of the Supreme Court. Id. 

 In order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner is required to 

show that the state court’s rejection of his claim “was so lacking in justification that 

there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 6 of 19 Pg ID 543
7 

possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103. That is not 

the case here. 

III. ANALYSIS 

Petitioner states two claims in his habeas petition. In his first claim, 

Petitioner contends that he was denied a fair trial because he was forced to wear leg 

restraints during his trial. (Dkt. 1, p. 3.) In his second claim, Petitioner alleges that 

appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim that Petitioner’s trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of leg restraints during trial. 

(Id.) Because these claims are interrelated, the Court will discuss them together. 

A. The Shackling Claim is Procedurally Defaulted 

 Petitioner first claims that he was denied due process because he was forced 

to wear a leg restraint during trial which became the subject of a question 

submitted by a juror. Although there is no allegation by Petitioner nor any evidence 

that the leg restraint or shackles were visible during trial, Petitioner claims that 

the jurors became aware that he was wearing a leg restraint after the following 

colloquy during Petitioner’s testimony that was prompted by a juror’s inability to 

hear Petitioner: 

Unknown Juror: Sorry... 

The Court: ... she went into the house. 

Unknown Juror: .... but I can’t understand [Petitioner]. 

[Defense Counsel]: Okay. You need to keep your voice up because people are 

having a hard time hearing you. So move closer to the—up there and keep 

your voice up. 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 7 of 19 Pg ID 544
8 

[Petitioner]: There’s some things that’s in my leg. I can’t get up there. 

[Defense Counsel ]: Okay. Well, just talk louder, okay? 

[Petitioner]: All right. 

(Dkt. 14, Tr. 3/20/12, 82:4-13). 

When Petitioner finished testifying, a juror submitted a written question 

asking whether Petitioner’s leg was injured. (Id. at 92-94.) After discussing the 

question at side bar with defense counsel and the prosecutor and no objections were 

raised (Id. at 92-93), the trial judge asked Petitioner whether his leg was injured: 

[The Court]: [Petitioner], you testified that—as you were asked to move 

forward to the microphone—that you couldn’t straighten your leg, is that—or 

that you couldn't bend your leg, is that right? 

[Petitioner]: Yes. 

[The Court]: That’s not an injury, is it? 

[Petitioner]: That’s not an injury. I—I have—from—this is a strap with a... 

[The Court]: Right. 

[Petitioner]: .... with a metal in it that—that they put... 

[The Court]: Right. 

[Petitioner]: .... on my feet as... 

[The Court]: On the—on the 14th of August of 2011, did you have a leg injury 

of any kind? 

[Petitioner]: No, I don’t have no leg injury. 

(Id. at 93:17-15-94:1-6.) 

On cross-examination, the prosecutor sought clarification: 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 8 of 19 Pg ID 545
9 

[The Prosecutor]: Now you indicated you had something on your leg. That’s 

something that was placed on it by the Sheriff’s Department? 

[Petitioner]: No, just by the jail—by the—by the—I think they—that’s they 

rules and regulations to have this on your leg when you come to court. 

(Id. at 96:5-9.) Neither defense counsel nor Petitioner objected to this question or 

the answer during the trial, and defense counsel chose not to redirect on the topic 

but rather simply rested the case once Petitioner had responded. (Id. at 96:10-17.) 

 Petitioner may not raise his shackling claim now because he made no 

objection during the trial to the juror’s question, the Court’s follow-up questions, or 

the prosecutor’s questions relating to his leg restraints. Petitioner has thus 

procedurally defaulted his shackling claim. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, a 

federal habeas Petitioner can procedurally default a claim by “failing to obtain 

consideration of a claim by a state court, either due to the petitioner’s failure to 

raise that claim before the state courts while state-court remedies are still available 

or due to a state procedural rule that prevents the state courts from reaching the 

merits of the petitioner’s claim.” Lundgren v. Mitchell, 440 F.3d 754, 763 (6th Cir. 

2006). 

 Where a state has a procedural rule that prevents the state courts from 

hearing the merits of a habeas Petitioner’s claim, that claim is procedurally 

defaulted when “1) [the] petitioner failed to comply with the rule, 2) the state 

actually enforced the rule against the petitioner, and 3) the rule is an ‘adequate and 

independent’ state ground foreclosing review of a federal constitutional claim.” Id. 

(quoting Willis v. Smith, 351 F.3d 741, 744 (6th Cir. 2003)). 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 9 of 19 Pg ID 546
10 

 The Sixth Circuit’s analysis in Taylor v. McKee, 649 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2011) 

is instructive here. The Sixth Circuit held in Taylor that a shackling claim can be 

procedurally defaulted when said claim is not properly preserved in the state courts. 

See 649 F.3d at 450 (“Taylor’s claim in regard to his shackling was procedurally 

defaulted by his failure to make a contemporaneous-objection to his treatment at 

the trial-court level.”) In Taylor, a Michigan prisoner argued that he was denied his 

right to a fair trial when he was forced to walk in front of jurors on the venire panel 

while wearing shackles and that any default was excused by the ineffective 

assistance of his lawyer for failing to object to this treatment. See id. at 448, 451. 

The Taylor Petitioner argued, as Petitioner argues here, that “he received 

ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel on direct review because that counsel 

failed to argue the ineffectiveness of trial counsel.” Id. at 452. The Taylor Court was 

not persuaded by either of these arguments. 

 In Taylor, the Court held that “because Taylor’s counsel did not raise the 

shackling issue at trial, it is procedurally defaulted, and Taylor’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel does not constitute cause and prejudice to excuse this default.” 

Id. at 448. The Taylor Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim could not 

be used to show cause and prejudice because, as in this case, “the ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim was itself procedurally defaulted.” Id. at 451. Moreover, 

the Taylor Court found that the Michigan Court of Appeals’ application of plain 

error review to the Petitioner’s shackling claim constituted “an adequate and 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 10 of 19 Pg ID 547
11 

independent state ground for foreclosing federal review” because it had prevented 

the state court from fully reaching the merits. Id. 

Michigan has a “well-established and normally enforced” contemporaneous 

objection procedural rule that was enforced in this case, as neither Petitioner nor 

his lawyer made any objection at trial regarding his leg restraints or references to 

them. See id. This failure to object at trial to the juror’s or the prosecutor’s question 

about Petitioner’s leg restraint led the Michigan Court of Appeals to find that the 

issue had not been preserved and to apply plain error review which prevented the 

state court from fully considering the merits of Petitioner’s claim.2 See Antoine, 

2013 WL 4404321, at *1-2 (“Antoine did not challenge the trial court’s use of 

shackles. We conclude that Antoine has not preserved this issue. This Court reviews 

unpreserved issues for plain error affecting a defendant’s substantial rights.”). As 

explained in Taylor, this constitutes an independent and adequate state ground for 

a procedural default. See 649 F.3d at 451. 

 When the state courts clearly and expressly rely on a valid state procedural 

bar, federal habeas review is also barred unless Petitioner can demonstrate cause 

for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged constitutional 

violation, or how that failure to consider his claims would result in a fundamental 

miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 (1991). If a 

Petitioner fails to show cause for his or her procedural default, it is unnecessary for 

the Court to reach the prejudice issue. Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 533 (1986). 

 

2 The Michigan Court of Appeals, after establishing that the applicable standard of review was plain 

error, concluded that Petitioner “has waived our review of this issue through the doctrine of invited 

error.” Antoine, 2013 WL 4404321, at *2. 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 11 of 19 Pg ID 548
12 

 Here, as in Taylor, Petitioner’s shackling claim is procedurally defaulted and, 

as explained below, because Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial and appellate 

counsel claim fails, Petitioner cannot make a showing of cause to excuse the default 

of his shackling claim. It is thus unnecessary for the Court to consider whether 

actual prejudice resulted from the alleged violation of Petitioner’s due process 

rights. 

B. Petitioner Cannot Establish Ineffective Assistance of Trial or Appellate 

Counsel 

Petitioner has failed to show that he was denied the effective assistance of 

trial or appellate counsel, either to excuse the default or as an independent basis for 

habeas relief. Petitioner fails to argue that any elements of a procedural default are 

missing in regard to his shackling claim. (Dkt. 1, p. 27.) Instead, Petitioner claims 

that he received ineffective assistance from his trial and appellate counsel, and this 

is sufficient to establish cause and prejudice to excuse his default of the shackling 

claim. (Id.) Essentially, Petitioner argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective 

for failing to raise trial counsel’s ineffectiveness on Petitioner’s direct appeal. (Dkt. 

1, p. 3.) 

Petitioner is correct that ineffective assistance of counsel may establish cause 

for procedural default. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000). To show 

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel under federal constitutional 

standards, however, Petitioner must satisfy a two-prong test. First, Petitioner must 

demonstrate that, considering all of the circumstances, counsel’s performance was 

so deficient that the attorney was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed by 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 12 of 19 Pg ID 549
13 

the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In so 

doing, Petitioner must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s behavior lies 

within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. In other words, 

Petitioner must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the 

challenged action might be sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. 

Second, Petitioner must show that such performance prejudiced his defense. 

Id. To demonstrate prejudice, the party who raises the claim of ineffective 

assistance must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 

694; see also Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15, 27 (2009). Here, Petitioner cannot 

establish that either his trial or appellate counsel were ineffective and therefore 

cannot show cause to excuse his default of the shackling claim. 

1. Trial Counsel was not Ineffective 

Petitioner is unable to establish that his trial attorney was ineffective for 

failing to object to Petitioner being shackled or to the juror’s and prosecutor’s 

references to Petitioner’s leg restraint for two reasons. 

First, Petitioner failed to show that trial counsel did not make a strategic 

decision to refrain from objecting to the references to Petitioner’s leg restraints, 

which were otherwise not visible to the jurors. The Sixth Circuit has noted that 

“experienced trial counsel learn that objections to each potentially objectionable 

event could actually act to their party’s detriment” and thus often “use objections in 

a tactical manner.” Lundgren, 440 F. 3d at 774. Petitioner’s trial lawyer may have 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 13 of 19 Pg ID 550
14 

chosen not to object so as not to draw any further attention to Petitioner’s leg and 

his leg restraints and to move on from the topic as quickly as possible. 

This appears to have been a justified course of action in retrospect, because 

the juror’s question related to whether Petitioner suffered from a leg injury. An 

objection to that narrow question might well have been overruled, allowing 

additional inquiry into the fact that the Petitioner was fully capable of running up 

on the victim at the time of the offense, as alleged by the prosecution. Objections to 

the questions that elicited Petitioners statements about the leg restraints might 

well have appeared ill-advised to counsel because they could have served to 

emphasize and draw attention to the restraints themselves. See e.g. Stamps v. Rees, 

834 F. 2d 1269, 1276 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to request jury admonition concerning 

permissible use of evidence of prior convictions did not constitute ineffective 

assistance “as it is quite evident that ... counsel simply wanted to get past the prior 

convictions as quickly as possible without bringing undue attention to them”). 

Second, in light of the compelling evidence of guilt in this case, Petitioner is 

unable to show that he was prejudiced by the shackling itself or by trial counsel’s 

failure to object to references to the leg restraints. The shackling of a Defendant is 

harmless error if there is overwhelming evidence of the Defendant’s guilt. See Lakin 

v. Stine, 431 F.3d 959, 966 (6th Cir. 2005); See also Robinson v. Gundy, 174 Fed. 

App’x. 886, 893 (6th Cir. 2006). The prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance 

analysis is essentially similar to the inquiry made in harmless-error review. See

Hall v. Vasbinder, 563 F.3d 222, 236 (6th Cir. 2009). 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 14 of 19 Pg ID 551
15 

Here, two witnesses identified Petitioner as the assailant. Tina Weinert 

testified that she was one hundred percent certain that Petitioner was her 

assailant. The uncertainties attendant to eye-witness identifications were not 

present in this case, because Weinert knew Petitioner personally, having spent two 

weeks with him only one month before the attack, and having communicated with 

him two weeks before. (Dkt. 13, Tr. 3/20/12, p. 44.) Weinert testified that Petitioner 

came out from behind a dumpster with a large butcher knife and stabbed her 

repeatedly. (Id. at 41-43.) Petitioner had threatened Weinert two weeks before the 

stabbing because he was concerned that she would testify against him in another 

matter. (Id. at 36.) 

Moreover, Ian Walker, who was babysitting one of Weinert’s children that 

day, testified that he heard Weinert calling for help. (Id. at 9-10.) As he came to 

assist, Walker also identified Petitioner as the person stabbing Weinert with a 

knife. (Id. at 10-11.) Weinert was hospitalized for more than a week because of her 

multiple stab wounds. (Id. at 44.) Dr. John Koziarski, the treating surgeon, testified 

that the victim suffered numerous stab wounds. (Id. at 70.) The only evidence for 

the defense was Petitioner’s own testimony that he was not the assailant. (Id. at 90-

91.) On balance, the jury credited Weinert and Walker’s testimony and convicted 

Petitioner in less than two hours. (See Dkt. 13, Tr. 3/21/12, p. 36.) 

In light of the overwhelming evidence of Petitioner’s guilt, any prejudice that 

may have resulted from the shackling was more than outweighed by the testimony 

and evidence of guilt at trial. Petitioner therefore cannot meet the Strickland 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 15 of 19 Pg ID 552
16 

requirement of showing that his trial counsel failure to object resulted in any 

prejudice. 

In essence, Petitioner cannot establish a reasonable probability that but for 

his trial lawyer’s allegedly erroneous failure to object, the result of the trial would 

have been any different. Accordingly, Petitioner was not prejudiced by his trial 

lawyer’s failure to object to his placement in leg restraints or to the questions 

regarding his restraints. See Bell v. Hurley, 97 Fed. App’x. 11, 17 (6th Cir. 2004). 

Because the Petitioner is unable to show that he was prejudiced by his shackling, 

trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object at trial. See Taylor, 649 F. 3d at 

451, n. 1 (ineffective assistance claim likely to fail on the merits because, given the 

strength of the evidence against him, Petitioner would likely have been convicted 

whether he was shackled at trial or not). 

2. Appellate Counsel was not Ineffective 

Moreover, because of the overwhelming evidence against him in this case, 

Petitioner likewise cannot establish that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s 

failure to raise a claim on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing 

to object to Petitioner’s shackling. See, e.g., Keys v. Booker, No. 14-1274, 2015 WL 

4926693, at *11 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2015) (appellate counsel was not deficient for 

failing to investigate issue regarding shackling of Petitioner before jury at voir dire 

stage, since Petitioner was not prejudiced as a result of jury seeing him in shackles, 

and even if had been so prejudiced, the outcome of the trial would remain 

unchanged due to the overwhelming evidence of Petitioner’s guilt). 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 16 of 19 Pg ID 553
17 

Petitioner raised his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim in 

Petitioner’s own pro se supplemental brief filed with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals.3 The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner’s claim that trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the shackling and that appellate 

counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness 

on appeal. Antoine, 2013 WL 4404321, at *3. Because the Michigan Court of 

Appeals considered and rejected Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel 

claim, Petitioner is unable to show that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s 

failure to raise this claim in the appeal brief counsel filed. See Donaldson v. Booker, 

505 Fed. App’x. 488, 496 (6th Cir. 2012). 

Additionally, Petitioner has not presented any new, reliable evidence to 

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

defaulted shackling claim as a ground for a writ of habeas corpus in spite of the 

procedural default. Accordingly, a miscarriage of justice will not occur if the Court 

declines to review Petitioner’s shackling claim on the merits. See Payne v. Smith, 

207 F. Supp. 2d 627, 639 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

Because Petitioner has not demonstrated any cause to justify his procedural 

default, it is unnecessary to reach the prejudice issue regarding his shackling claim. 

Smith, 477 U.S. at 533; See also Isabell v. Curtis, 36 Fed. App’x. 785, 788 (6th Cir. 

2002); Payne, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 638-9. 

 

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). 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 17 of 19 Pg ID 554
18 

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

The Court will deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus as well as a 

certificate of appealability. “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. § 2254; See also Strayhorn v. 

Booker, 718 F. Supp. 2d 846, 875 (E.D. Mich. 2010). In order to obtain a certificate 

of appealability, a Petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate this denial, the 

Petitioner 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 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. 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 18 of 19 Pg ID 555
19 

For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court will deny Petitioner a 

certificate of appealability because he has failed to make a substantial showing of 

the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Millender v. Adams, 187 F. Supp. 2d 

852, 880 (E.D. Mich. 2002), aff’d 376 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2004). The Court will also 

deny Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis, because the appeal would be 

frivolous. See Allen v. Stovall, 156 F. Supp. 2d 791, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

V. CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 2, 2015 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on November 2, 2015, 

using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. 

 By: s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:14-cv-14933-TGB-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 11/02/15 Pg 19 of 19 Pg ID 556