Opinion ID: 855793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Both parties, as well as the district court, directly quote and adopt the findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals as to the underlying facts surrounding Watkins’ arrest and conviction. Accordingly, this Court does the same.1 On January 18, 1998, Allen Russell Stewart was shot in the back in his mother’s front yard and died the same day from his gunshot wound. There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting, although the next-door neighbor recalled seeing two men standing by a tree shortly before Allen was shot, and stated that she heard the gunshot. Allen’s mother, Charlene Stewart, also heard a loud noise at the time of the shooting and observed Allen staggering into her kitchen with blood on his head. Charlene said that after Allen was shot, she was unable to locate his wallet or several pieces of jewelry that he normally wore. A police officer who responded to Charlene’s 911 call noticed that Allen had duct tape on his wrists. After a search of Allen’s room at his mother’s house, the officer found what appeared to be drugtrafficking paraphernalia and 10.98 grams of crack cocaine with an estimated value of $1,000. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), all facts recited are as determined by the state court and “shall be presumed to be correct.” 2 No. 10-2284 Watkins v. Lafler, Warden The police subsequently received information that [Watkins] may have been involved in the shooting. A police detective traveled to Kentucky, where [Watkins] was in jail on an unrelated charge, and interviewed [him] after he waived his Miranda rights. According to the detective, [Watkins] initially denied any involvement in the shooting or that he had ever been to Michigan. During a third interview, [Watkins] allegedly admitted that he and a friend, Ardell Robinson, went to the neighborhood to attend a party and sat on the hood of Allen’s car waiting for the party to begin. [Watkins] claimed that Allen pushed him and his gun went off as he slipped and fell. In a fifth interview, [Watkins] allegedly told the detective that Robinson gave him a gun before they arrived in Allen’s neighborhood. [Watkins] said that Robinson grabbed Allen, and when Allen broke away and approached [Watkins], he pulled his gun and it went off. The detective claimed that [Watkins] further admitted that he and Robinson discussed robbing someone. The prosecution charged [Watkins] with open murder and felony firearm. At a hearing on November 4, 1999, [Watkins] pleaded guilty to both charges and claimed that he shot Allen after the two fought. During the course of the plea hearing, the court informed [Watkins] that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to a jury trial and the right to remain silent at that trial. [Watkins] indicated his understanding of his rights and the consequences of his plea and waived his rights on the record. On November 8, 1999, the court held a degree hearing pursuant to M.C.L. § 750.318. At the hearing, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Charlene Stewart, the police officer who responded to the scene following the shooting, and the detective who interviewed [Watkins]. The prosecution also called a forensic pathologist who testified that Allen had scrapes on his forehead and face and died as a result of the gunshot wound. According to the pathologist, the bullet entered Allen’s back, traveled down through his body, perforating his aorta, and stopped in his thigh. After the prosecution and defense rested, the court called [Watkins] as a witness, and he was questioned both by the court and the prosecution. Defense counsel did not object to the court calling [Watkins] as a witness or to [Watkins’] testimony. During his testimony, [Watkins] denied robbing Allen and continued to insist that the shooting occurred as the two fought. In an oral decision following the degree hearing, the trial court found that [Watkins] planned to rob Allen and the shooting could not have happened in the manner described by [Watkins]. The court then concluded that the killing constituted felony murder because it occurred during the course of a robbery. 3 No. 10-2284 Watkins v. Lafler, Warden People v. Watkins, 634 N.W.2d 370, 374-75 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (footnotes omitted). Based upon its conclusion that Watkins was guilty of first degree felony murder, the trial court sentenced him to a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole on the murder count, and two years on the felony firearm count. Watkins subsequently moved to withdraw his plea, which motion was denied by the trial court. He then appealed his conviction and sentence. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied this appeal, Watkins, 634 N.W.3d at 373-82, as did the Michigan Supreme Court, People v. Watkins, 661 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. 2003). Following the state appellate courts’ denial of his appeals, Watkins filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and after the district court held the petition in abeyance to allow Watkins to exhaust all of his claims in state court, the petition was reinstated and the district court appointed counsel and granted an evidentiary hearing on Watkins’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims which are raised here on appeal. Following this evidentiary hearing and supplemental briefing by the parties, the district court issued an “Opinion and Order Denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” on all of Watkins’ assertions of error. The district court also granted a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Watkins’ notice of appeal was timely filed. Subject matter jurisdiction over this matter was conferred to the federal district court by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal as of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which authorizes an appeal from a final order by a district court. 4 No. 10-2284 Watkins v. Lafler, Warden