UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADRIAN DEANDRE STEVENSON,

Petitioner, Case Number 09-13358

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

CINDI S. CURTIN,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner Adrian Deandre Stevenson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp.

Laws § 750.520b(1)(a). Afer the petitioner was found guilty by a jury in the Wayne County,

Michigan circuit court, the court sentenced him to 45 to180 months in prison. The petition raised

two claims: (1) the petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause were violated because he did

not receive adequate notice of the charges when the prosecutor changed the date of the offense

during post-conviction proceedings; and (2) he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel

when his trial counsel presented alibi evidence for the wrong time period and failed to ascertain the

correct date of the offense. The Court found that neither of the petitioner’s claims had merit and

denied the petition. 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts, which was amended as of December 1, 2009:

The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a

final order adverse to the applicant. . . . If the court issues a certificate, the court must

state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, a party may not appeal the denial but

2:09-cv-13358-DML-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1085
-2-

may seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22.

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Courts must either issue a certificate

of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or provide reasons why such

a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); In re Certificates of

Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997). To receive a certificate of appealability, “a

petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, 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.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)

(internal quotes and citations omitted).

The Court, although it did not necessarily agree with the state court’s decision, held that the

state court’s adjudication of the petitioner’s due process claim was not unreasonable because there

were ample pretrial indications that victim maintained that the crime occurred in the winter of 2004-

2005. United States v. Abernathy, No. 08-20103, 2009 WL 2843917, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 1,

2009) (citing Dowell v. Lensing, 805 F. Supp. 1335, 1343 (M.D. La. 1992) (stating that “it is equally

true, at least in the context of federal habeas corpus review, that the question of whether the accused

was denied the right to be informed of the charge against him does not turn exclusively upon the

content of the indictment or information. . . . [T]he accused’s constitutional right to notice . . . can

be satisfied by the availability of other means of obtaining notice of the factual or legal basis of the

charge against him, such as a bill of particulars, a preliminary examination and criminal pre-trial

2:09-cv-13358-DML-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1086
-3-

discovery”)). The Court believes that reasonable jurists could debate the outcome of this issue and,

therefore, will grant a certificate of appealability on this issue.

The Court denied the petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim because the petitioner did not

establish prejudice; he did not show a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have

been more favorable if he presented additional evidence in support of his alibi defense, nor did he

show that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to request a bill of particulars and then

present a defense for the winter of 2004-2005. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could

disagree. The Court will grant a certificate of appealability on this issue as well.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 30, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or

first class U.S. mail on July 30, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-13358-DML-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 07/30/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1087