Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 26

22 

BROWN v. DAVENPORT 

Opinion of the Court 

AEDPA’s terms.  Instead, it usually represents “a decision
by the state supreme court not to hear the appeal—that is, 
not  to  decide  at  all.”  Greene,  565  U. S.,  at  40;  cf.  Ylst  v. 
Nunnemaker, 501 U. S. 797, 805–806 (1991) (“[T]he discre-
tionary denial of review on direct appeal by the California
Supreme Court is not even a ‘judgment’ ”).

In this respect, the Michigan Supreme Court follows a fa-
miliar practice.  “The denial of a writ of certiorari” in this 
Court “imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of 
the  case.”  United  States  v.  Carver,  260  U. S.  482,  490 
(1923).  And  the  Michigan  Supreme  Court  has  long  de-
scribed its denials of applications for leave to appeal in the 
same terms.  See, e.g., Malooly v. York Heating & Ventilat-
ing  Corp.,  270  Mich.  240,  246–247,  258  N. W.  622,  624 
(1935); see also Mich. Ct. Rules 7.303(B)(1), 7.305(B)(1)–(3) 
(2021).  In the past, too, this Court has treated lower Mich-
igan  court  decisions  as  the  relevant  AEDPA  adjudication
despite  discretionary  denials  of  review  by  the  State  Su-
preme Court.  Woods v. Donald, 575 U. S. 312, 314–315, 317 
(2015) (per curiam); Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S. 12, 20 (2013); 
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 156, 161, 173 (2012). 

Turning to the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals,
Mr. Davenport principally argues that it was contrary to or
an  unreasonable  application  of  this  Court’s  decision  in 
Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U. S. 560 (1986).  But it is hard to 
see how that could be the case.  For one thing, Holbrook was 
a  decision  about  whether  a  constitutional  trial  error  oc-
curred at all, not whether the alleged error was prejudicial. 
For another, Holbrook rejected the defendant’s claim that
he “was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial whe[n] 
. . .  the  customary  courtroom  security  force  was  supple-
mented by four uniformed state troopers sitting in the first 
row of the spectator’s section.”  Id., at 562.  Nothing in that
analysis is inconsistent with the Michigan Court of Appeals’ 
disposition of Mr. Davenport’s shackling claim.

Unable to make use of Holbrook’s holding, Mr. Davenport