NO T F OR P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0146n.06 F iled: Marc h 14, 2008 NO. 05-5661 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

ROGER D ALE LE WIS,

P etitioner -Appellant, ON AP P EA L F RO M THE v. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT CO UR T F OR

THE M ID DL E STA TE OF TEN NE SSEE, DI STRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________/ BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , SU TTON , a nd G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Roge r Dale L ewis appe als from the or der of the district

c ourt g ra nti ngthe Re sp onden t, S tate of Te nn e sse e ’s mot ion

to d ism iss his ha

be a s p e tit ion . T his Court gr anted a

cer tificate of appea labil ity

on two issues: (1) whe ther the State f ailed to turn over

mate ri a l e xcu lpator

y e vid e nc e c on c e rn ing its ke y wi tne ss, Er ne st B ish op ; and

(2 ) whe the r t

he State kn o w i n g l y a l l o w e d B i s h o p t o c o m m i tp e r j u r y w i t h o u tt a k i n g s t e p s t o c o r r e c tt h e f a l s e t e s t i m o n y. We A F F I RM. I. Bac kgr ound L e wi s w a s c on vic te d o f a

rs on in s tate c ou

rt in 1 99 3. Th e ke y wi tne ss a t his tr ia l wa s E rn e st Bishop, a so- called “

jailhouse snitch.” Prior to tr ial, Petitioner’s trial counsel submitt ed a disc overy reque st for “a

ny and all ev i d en ce in possession of the State or in possession of any g overnme ntal ag ency t h at m i ght be terme d favor able,” including, but not limited to, evidence “to impeac h the2

cre dibil i t y of any

witness the g overnme nt intends to call.” The r equest spec ifically cited Brady v. Ma r yland , 3 73 U. S. 8 3 ( 19 63 ). Th e mot ion a lso re qu e ste d d isc ov e ry re g ard ingany

a g re e me nt, p ro m i s e or u n d er s t an d i n g b et we en t h e S t at e an d an y o f i t s wi t n es s es , ci t i n g Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The state prosec utor responde d to the di scover y motion, but he did not provide a copy of Bishop’s National Crime I nformation Center (NCI C) repor

t, which details cha

rg es dating back t o 1 9 6 1 , i ncluding attempted ra pe, bre akingand ente ring , and thef t, as well as the use of numerous aliase s. At trial Bishop wa s asked during cross examination if he had be en convic ted of a ny felony in the last ten y ear s. Bishop re plied: “I don’t think so. I ’m not sure.” Bishop ac knowledg ed that he wa s awa iting extradition to Tex as on a se x ual assault cha rg e. De fense counsel a lso asked whe ther he had e ver w orked for t he poli ce “bef ore in the past, g iven t hem i nformation that’s helped y ou out in some of t he sentencing , some of t he thi ng s y ou don’t reme mber y ou did? ” Bishop said that he had not. Pe tit ion e r w a s c on vic te d o n f ive c ounts of

a g g ra vate d a rs on , a nd se nte nc e d to a te rm

of thi rt y y ear s. The convic tion and sentenc e we re a ffirme d on direc t appea l to the Tennesse e Court of Criminal Appeals. Se e Sta te v . Le wis , No. 01 C01 -9 49 4- CR- 00 13 5, 19 95 WL 10 51 0 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. J an. 12, 1995). O n Dec ember 29, 1997, the Tenne ss ee Supreme Court re verse d four of Petitioner’s ag g ravated ar son convictions as barred by double jeopar dy

and re manded the c ase f

or

re s entencing on the rema ining c onviction. Sta te v . Le wis , 9 5 8 S. W. 2 d 7 3 6 ( T e n n . 1 997)

. On

rema nd, the trial cour

t sentence d Petitioner t o t we n t y -one year s in prison. That sentenc e wa s af fi rm ed

. S e eS t a tev . Le wis , No. M1998-00543-CCA-R3CD, 1999 WL1296005 (Tenn. Crim. App. De c . 3 0, 19 99 ); Sta te v . Le wis , 44 S.W .3d 501 (Tenn. 2001)

.3

I n post-conviction proc eeding s, Petiti oner a rgued t h at h e had be en denie d Bradymate ri a l, namely Bishop’s NCI C report a

nd Bishop’s reputation a s a “jailhouse snitch.” Petitioner also argued that the State fa ile d in its duty to c or re c t B ish op ’s pe rj ur e d te sti mony c on c e rn ingde a ls m a de wi th the State in return f

or his testimony

in Pe t itioner’s trial. The post-conviction cour t denied the petition and t h e T ennesse e Court of Criminal Appea ls affirme d the post-conviction cour t’s dispositi on. Se e Sta te v . Le wis , N o. M2 00 2- 02 43 9- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 3 WL 22 43 85 26 (T e nn . Cr im. Ap p. Oc t. 2 8, 20 03 ). Pe tit ion e r d id n ot s e e k le a ve to a pp e a l to the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court

. On Marc h 2, 2004, Petitioner filed pr o s e this habeas a ction. On Marc h 25, 2005, the district court de nied Petitioner’s habea s petition, but g rante d a partial cer tificate of appea lability

reg arding his Bradyan d

p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s c o n d

u c tc l a i m s . P e t i t i o n e r f

i l e d a t i m e l y pro se no tic e of

a pp e a l, and a pro se brief, where afte r this Court appointed counsel to file a supplemental brief

. II. Ana lys is Petitioner’s appe al is g overne d by the Antiterror ism and Effe ctive De ath Penalty Act of 1996 (A ED PA) . U nd e r t

he AE DPA , a wr it wil l not be g ra nte d unle ss t

he state a dju dic a tio n o n th e me ri ts resulted ina

d e c is io nth a t e it

h e r ( 1 ) “ w a s c o n tr ar

y to , o r inv o lv e d anu n r e a s o n a

b le a p p li c a ti o no f, clea rly established F eder al law, a s determined by the Supreme Court of the United S t at es ”; or (2) “wa s based on an unrea sonable deter mination of the fac ts in light of the evidenc e prese nted in the S t a t e c o u rtp r o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 (d ); W i l l i a ms v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 404-5 (2000). Howeve r, if the state court did not rule on an issue, our revie w is de novo. Mo ra le s v . M itc he ll , 507 F.3d 916, 929 ( 6th Cir. 2007).4

The state c ourts’ factual findings are presumed corr ect unless pr oven to the contr ary by clea r and convinc ing e vidence . 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) . We revie w the district cour t’s ultimate denial of habea s relief

de novo. Com bs v . Co

y le , 205 F.3d 269, 277 ( 6th Cir. 2000). A. Br adyCl aim Pe tit ion e r a

rgue s th a t th e State su

pp ressed mate ri a l e vid e nc e re g ard ingits ke y wi tne ss’ criminal re cord a

nd reputation as a “ja ilhouse snitch” in violation of Brady , and that the state court’s de c isi on tha t th e imp e a c hme nt e vid e nc e wa s n ot mate ri a l is an unr e a so na ble a pp lic a tio n o f c le arl y established fe dera l law. As no te d, the Te nn e sse e Court of Cr im in a l App e a ls h e ld t ha t Pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh

a Bradyviolation be cause the alleg ed impeachme nt e vidence was not mater ial, and did not decide whether the evidenc e other

wise satisfied the Bradytest. See Strick ler v. Gre ene , 527 U.S. 263, 281- 82 (1999) ( noting that to esta blish a Bradyclaim, a de fenda nt must prove that the evidenc e wa s (1) favor able to the acc used

, (2) suppressed by the s tate, and (3) material). Thus, in asce rtaining whether the State’s conduc t met the other fa cets of the Brady test, our re view is de novo. See M orales , 507 F.3d at 929. This Court’s rec ent dec ision in Be ll v . B e ll , 512 F.3d 223 (6th Cir. 2008) (en ba nc), a nswers that question. There we he ld that t h e s t at e’ s fa i lure to turn over the sentenc ing r ecor ds of a g overnme nt witness was not a Bradyviolation because those rec ords wer e publicly available and the petitioner could have obtained the m. Id. at 235. As was the c ase in Be ll , Bishop’s testimony derive d from evide nce h e ac q u i red w hile in prison with Petit ioner, a nd Bishop fur

ther a cknowledg ed on

c ro ss- e xami natio n th a t he wa s su bje c t to e xtra dit ion

to T e xas. Pe tit ion e r th erefo re “ e a sil y c ou ld have pur sued any

pendingchar g es ag ainst [B i shop] and their disposit ion.” Id. Thus, beca use the5

fac tual basis for Petitioner’s c lai m was e asily available from anothe r sourc e, the g overnme nt was under no duty

to supply that information to Petitioner. See id. (and c itations therein).

B. Pr osecutor ial Miscondu ct Petitioner also claims that Bi s h op testified fa lsely and that the State f

ailed to cor

rec t that perjure d testimony

. Petitioner’s asser tion is based on Bishop’s neg ative response t o the question of wh et h er h e h ad ev er wo rk ed fo r t h e p o l i ce i n t h e p as t o r r ec ei v eds o m e c o n s i d er at i o ni ns en t en ci n g. F ir st, he c on te nd s th a t B ish op re c e ive d a re du c e d se nte nc e on a the ft c ha rg e in r e tur

n f or his testimony ag ainst him. On direct appea l P eti tioner asse rted a claim that B ishop rece ived spec ial treatment in ex chang e for his testimony . The Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals held that Petitioner ’ s ar g u me n ts w e r e “ n o t s u p p o rte d b y f a c t o r le g a l a u th o r it y , ” an d th a t t h e r e w e r e “ no citations to authority to support his argument in his brief.” Le wis , 1995 WL 10510, at *3. Thus, the court rule d t h at Petitioner had wa ived the issue, citingRule 10(b) of the Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals. Se e Le wis ,1995 WL 10510, at *3. Pe tit ion e r r e a sse rt e d th e latte r cl a im in his po st- c on vic tio n r e qu e st f or re lie f a s a

pr e dic a te for the pr osecutoria l misconduct claim. The Court of Crimi nal Appea ls held that the issue had be en waived on dir ect r eview be cause “petitioner could have introduced the pleading s related to Bishop’s plea a g ree ment and sente ncing ” as w ell as “subpoe na[ing] m embers of the prose cution team reg arding any promises made to B ishop.” Le wis , 2003 WL 22438526, at * 12

. Thus, the trial cour t’s ruling was “ final,” id., and the re fo re “ pr e vio us ly de te rm ine d b y the or ig ina l tr ia l c ourt ” a ft e r a “ fu ll and fa ir hea

ring ,” id. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-206(h) ), and thus “not subjec t to further revie w by this court.” Id. Th e Court of Cr im in al App e a ls r ule d in the a lte rn a tiv e that th e c la im failed on the merits. Id . at 12-13.6

The district court review ed the c laim on the merits. Howeve r, this was er ror be cause the district court incorr ectly

deter mined that the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals’ de cision did not rely solely on the state proce dural ba r. The me rits reviewby

the Court of Criminal Appea ls was an alternative holding. See id. at 12 (stating that “[e]ven if this iss ue we re pr operly

befor e us, . . . we would reje ct it . . .”). “A n alternative holding in which a state proc edura l bar is a suff icient basis for the state c ourt' s judgme nt is a dequate to pr eclude a claim from being raised on habea s revie w, eve n when the state court also relies on fede ral law.” Simpson v. Jone s , 238 F.3d 399, 408- 09 (6th Cir. 20 00 ); s ee also Michigan v. Long , 4 6 3 U

. S. 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 4 1 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ( s tati n g , in th e c o n te xt o f

a d ir e ct appea l, that “[i] f t he st ate court decision i ndicates c lear ly and expressly

that it is alternatively

based

o n b o n a f i d e s e p ar a t e , a d e qu a t e , an d i n d e p e n d e n t g r o u n d s , w e , o f c o u r s e , w i l l n o t u n d e rt a k e to

re vie w the de c isi on ” ); Harris v. Ree d , 4 8 9 U. S

. 2 5 5 , 2 6 4 n . 1 0 (1 9 8 9 ) ( ap p l yi n g Long rule to habe as claims, stating that “a state court need not f ear rea ching the merits of a fede ral claim in an alternative holding” ; further

noting that “ [b] y

its very definition, the ade quate an d i ndepende nt state g round do c tr ine re qu ir e s th e fe de ra l c ourt to h on or a state ho ldi ngthat is a

su ff ic ie nt basis f

or the state court’s judg ment, even when the state court a lso re l i es on fe dera l law”) . I n short, beca use the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als relied on the direc t appea l determination that the c laim was waived, f eder al re view of this claim i s barr ed. Se e Al le yv . B e ll , 307 F.3d 380, 388- 89 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner’s asser

tion that Bishop worke d for t h e p olice in the past wa s also not supported by the evidenc e. Petitioner supported this perjury alleg ation with a 1994 fe dera l appellate de cision in which B ishop was desc ribed a s a g overnme nt witness, see United States v. Johnson , 16 F.3d 1222 (6th Cir. 1994) (unpublis h ed p er curiam). The Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals found noThe Te nnessee Court of Criminal Appeals did not alternati v el y ru l e that this claim was 1 proce durally

defa ulted. See B aze v. Park

er , 3 71 F .3 d 3 10 , 3 20 (6 th Cir . 2 00 4) (h old ingtha t if a state court doe s no t expressly

rely on a proc edura l deficie ncy , the fe dera l court may conduct ha

beas revie w). Fur

thermore , the state doe s not contend on appe al that this issue is procedura lly defa ulted. See id. 7 evidenc e in the rec ord or in the Johnson opinion to support the claim. Le wis , 2003 WL 22438526, at *10. As the district court noted, the Johnson op ini on ide nti fi e s B ish op a s a

g ov e rnme nt w itn e ss, 1 but does not otherwise e x plain his relationship with the g overnme nt. I n short, as the district cour t fo un d, the state c ourt

of a pp e a ls’ rul ingwa s n ot c on tr ary to f e de ra l la w o r a n unr e a so na

ble de te rm inatio n o f t

he fa c ts. III. Conclusi on Th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRMED.