Opinion ID: 458714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: procedural history and issues raised on appeal

Text: 10 On February 26, 1974, petitioner Martin was convicted of first-degree murder by a jury following a trial in the Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on March 19, 1974. Martin filed an appeal as of right in the Michigan Court of Appeals on March 22, 1974. His conviction was affirmed on July 24, 1975. People v. Martin, No. 19794 (Mich.Ct.App.1975) (per curiam ). An application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was denied on June 8, 1976. People v. Martin, 397 Mich. 883 (1976). Martin then filed a delayed motion for new trial (application for leave to file a motion for new trial) in the Wayne County Circuit Court on December 26, 1980. The motion was denied in an order dated August 27, 1981. (Docket No. 75-58515). On November 2, 1981, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied Martin's application for leave to appeal. (Docket No. 59239). The Michigan Supreme Court denied Martin's application for leave to appeal on June 29, 1982. People v. Martin, 413 Mich. 943 (1982). No issues of procedural default or exhaustion are raised in this appeal. 11 Thereafter, Martin filed his section 2254 petition for habeas corpus on September 10, 1982. Following the district court's denial of his petition, Martin filed this appeal raising the following issues: 12 (A) Whether Martin's fourteenth amendment due process rights under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), were violated by the prosecutor's elicitation of testimony that Martin was silent during the search for the blue Ford. 13 (B) Whether Martin was denied fourteenth amendment due process by virtue of prosecutorial misconduct stemming from alleged prejudicial comments by the prosecutor. 14 (C) Whether sufficient evidence for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt was presented on the issue of premeditation. 15 (D) Whether Martin was denied fourteenth amendment due process by the jury instruction on premeditation. 16 (E) Whether the state court erroneously shifted a burden of proof to Martin in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), by stating in its charge that malice may be implied. 17 (F) Whether Martin's fourteenth amendment due process rights were violated by the admission of evidence that Martin had given false exculpatory evidence.