Court Opinion

ID: 9634572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:17:20.435623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:05.734982
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority has found that Guilmette procedurally defaulted by not bringing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel immediately and that, even if he had, he cannot succeed on the merits of his claim. I disagree with both conclusions and, therefore, respectfully dissent. As to the alleged procedural default, neither the final state court ruling on the merits of this case nor the courts that heard the ease on appeal mentioned a procedural bar. Thus, under this Court’s holdings in Abela v. Martin, 380 F.3d 915 (6th Cir.2004), and Ivory v. Jackson, 509 F.3d 284 (6th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1897, 170 L.Ed.2d 765 (2008), Guilmette’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are not procedurally defaulted. As to the ineffective assistance claim, under the Strickland analysis, Guilmette’s attorney’s failure to conduct an adequate investigation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. He neither cross-examined the state’s experts nor conducted a reasonable investigation into a single photograph of a footprint, taken by a witness after the state trooper had left the scene, that constituted the only evidence of entry into the house, a necessary element of the charge of home invasion.
A. Guilmette is not procedurally barred from bringing his habeas claim
Guilmette first raised his ineffective assistance claim during state collateral proceedings. The majority contends that, because the claims raised by Guilmette in his habeas petition were raised for the first time in his state post-conviction motion for relief from judgement — and not on direct appeal — federal review of his claims is barred by procedural default. See supra at 508-09. To be sure “[i]t is well-settled that when a state prisoner has ‘defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred’ unless the petitioner can show cause for the default and prejudice because of it, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Abela, 380 F.3d at 921 (citing *513Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991)). Yet, a state procedural rule is an “independent” ground for precluding federal habeas review only if the state court actually relied on the rule to bar the claim at issue. Id. As we have held, “a state procedural rule is an independent and adequate state ground only if the state court rendering judgment in the case clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a procedural bar.” Id. (citing Simpson v. Sparkman, 94 F.3d 199, 202 (6th Cir.1996)). This makes sense — procedural default is a draconian result, so it should apply only when the state court’s reasoning is clear and unequivocal.
The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on the ground that Guilmette failed “to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under [Michigan Court Rule] 6.508(D).” The majority errs in construing the Michigan Supreme Court’s order — and the citation to M.C.R. 6.508(D) generally — as an invocation of the procedural default provision set forth in M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3). M.C.R. 6.508(D) broadly pertains to motions for relief from judgment and states that courts many not grant relief if the motion suffers from either procedural or substantive defects.
As noted above, our task is to determine whether the state court “clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a procedural bar.” Sparkman, 94 F.3d at 202. Here, as with Abela, the Michigan Supreme Court only referenced M.C.R. 6.508(D), generally, as the basis for denying Guilmette leave to appeal the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals. Although M.C.R. 6.508(D)(1), (2), and (3) list specific procedural grounds for denying a defendant relief from judgment, these procedural grounds are not the exclusive grounds for which a court may deny relief pursuant to M.C.R. 6.508(D). A court may deny relief from judgment under 6.508(D)(4) for the substantive, i.e. non-procedural, reason that the defendant simply failed to meet his burden of “establishing entitlement to the relief requested.” As such, the Michigan courts’ bare citation to M.C.R. 6.508(D) in orders denying Guilmette leave to appeal does not demonstrate that the courts denied him leave to appeal on the basis of a procedural default, much less on the procedural ground described in M.C.R. 6.508(D)(3), which the warden urges on this Court.
The majority attempts to distinguish Abela from the case at hand by noting that, here, both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court invoked M.C.R. 6.508(D) in their denial of review, while in Abela, the Court of Appeals had made a determination on the merits. However, this is a distinction without a difference. As we noted in Ivory v. Jackson, 509 F.3d 284, 292 (6th Cir.2007), the Abela Court itself distinguished two prior Sixth Circuit decisions holding that a denial of relief based on M.C.R. 6.508(D) provides an adequate and independent state procedural sanction sufficient to preclude habeas review on this same basis. Id. at 923-24 (citing Simpson v. Jones, 238 F.3d 399 (6th Cir.2000), and Burroughs v. Makowski 282 F.3d 410 (6th Cir.2002)). However, the Abela Court distinguished Simpson and Makowski on the ground that, in those cases, the last reasoned state court opinion that referenced anything other than M.C.R. 6.508(D) had without question denied relief on procedural grounds. Id. at 923. Thus, one could assume in Simpson and Makowski that the affirmance under M.C.R. 6.508(D) was an affirmance of the lower court’s procedural findings. In Abela, however, as in this case, the lower state courts had made no procedural holdings in the last reasoned opinion, so it would be difficult to read the *514simple affirmance as being based on procedural grounds.
The majority relies heavily on Munson v. Kapture, 384 F.3d 310 (6th Cir.2004), because in that case, as in this case, both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court invoked M.C.R. 6.508(D) in denying review. However, Munson must be distinguished for the same reason that we distinguished Simpson and Makowski. In Munson, the last reasoned opinion was at the post-conviction state trial court proceedings. The court denied Munson’s claims, inter alia, because he “fail[ed] to show just cause why prosecutor misconduct was not raised in earlier appeals.” Munson, 384 F.3d at 313. Thus, the last reasoned state-court decision in Munson was based, at least in part, on procedural grounds, so, as in Simpson and Makowski, we could assume that the M.C.R. 6.508(D) affirmance was based on the procedural grounds cited by the trial court.1
The last reasoned state-court opinion issued in both Abela and in Guilmette’s case, by contrast, explicitly adjudicated the case on the merits without any reference to procedural issues. Thus, as with Abela, the Michigan Supreme Court’s summary order cannot possibly be interpreted solely to rely on a procedural bar, as opposed to the non-procedural reason that Guilmette simply failed to meet his burden of “establishing entitlement to the relief requested.” Indeed, given the line of prior merits determinations in Guilmette’s case, it is much more reasonable to presume that the Michigan Supreme Court’s reference to M.C.R. 6.508(D) signaled its agreement with the lower courts’ merits determinations than it is to presume that the reference signaled, for the first time in this case, the invocation of a procedural bar.2
B. Guilmette successfully showed ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
The majority also errs in its finding that Guilmette could not show ineffective assistance of counsel. Guilmette trial counsel *515rendered ineffective assistance in two related ways: first, by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts, specifically by not investigating the discrepancies between the photograph of the suspect’s footprint taken by the police and the photograph of the threshold footprint taken by the homeowner after the police investigation, and, second, by failing to contest the prosecution’s proofs on a necessary element of the offense of home invasion.3
As the majority noted, the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), governs our analysis. It is well-established that “[cjounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The duty to investigate derives from counsel’s basic function, which is “ ‘to make the adversarial testing process work in the particular case.’” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052). “The relevant question is not whether counsel’s choices were strategic, but whether they were reasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 481, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). A purportedly strategic decision is not objectively reasonable “when the attorney has failed to investigate his options and make a reasonable choice between them.” Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 288 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Horton v. Zant, 941 F.2d 1449, 1462 (11th Cir.1991)).
Courts have not hesitated to find constitutionally ineffective assistance when counsel fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into one or more aspects of the case and when that failure prejudices his or her client.4 Guilmette’s trial counsel’s failure to conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts surrounding the photographs of the footprints that the state introduced into evidence similarly violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Guilmette has thus successfully satisfied both the deficiency and prejudice prongs of Strickland.
With regard to the deficiency prong, the facts demonstrate that counsel did not investigate the facts surrounding the footprints. These photos were the only evidence presented of entry, a necessary element to the charge of home invasion. Joan McCormick, the only eyewitness, did not see the perpetrator enter the house though she looked after she tripped and *516saw the perpetrator “running off the porch.” Her testimony — nearly the only evidence presented outside of the two, different footprints of the alleged home invasion-supports an alternate theory that the perpetrator broke down the door and ran away without entering the home and that the footprint found on the threshold was created by someone else after the perpetrator had fled. When State Trooper Jennifer Coulter arrived, she observed footprints in the snow on the walkway and avoided them, thinking that they had been left by the perpetrator. She photographed the clearest print that she could find and that photograph, along with expert testimony about the footprint, was introduced into evidence as the footprint of the perpetrator of the offense. But, importantly, this photo was not proof of entrance by the perpetrator, merely proof that someone had stepped on the walkway.
It was not until after Trooper Coulter left that McCormick took a photograph of a snowy footprint on the threshold of her front entrance; this photograph was the only evidence at trial to purport to show that the perpetrator had entered the home. Guilmette’s trial counsel never even looked to see if the two photographed footprints were the same, or even similar. Guilmette’s current attorney contends that the photographs do not correspond to one another and that even a cursory investigation into the photographs would have revealed this discrepancy. Additionally, Guilmette’s trial counsel should have been on notice that he should compare the two photographs based on the fact that the second was taken by McCormick after Trooper Coulter had left and it could have been Trooper Coulter’s footprint rather than the perpetrator’s. That decision not to compare the photographs was objectively unreasonable because it “was a decision made without undertaking a full investigation” into whether a comparison of the photographs could assist in Guilmette’s defense. Combs, 205 F.3d at 288. By failing even to compare the two, readily available photographs, Guilmette’s counsel “abandoned his investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to [whether such an investigation was] impossible.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527-28, 123 S.Ct. 2527. Counsel should have hired an expert to examine the prints, see Richey v. Bradshaw, 498 F.3d 344, 363-64 (6th Cir.2007) (finding that an expert was necessary to make an informed decision about trial strategy), and should have, at the very least, cross-examined the prosecution’s footprint expert regarding the discrepancy. Trial counsel should have made an argument to the jury or the court about the discrepancy. Instead, trial counsel focused only on the state’s identification of Guilmette as the perpetrator to the exclusion of all other viable arguments. This was not a strategic decision because a strategic decision necessarily involves an informed choice between two alternatives. Here, counsel was completely ignorant as to one of these alternatives due to his failure to reasonably investigate, or indeed, to investigate at all, an obvious evidentiary problem and defense to a required element of the charge. This constitutes a deficiency of counsel, satisfying the first Strickland prong.
With regard to Strickland’s prejudice prong, the record contains ample evidence indicating that, but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that Guilmette would have been acquitted. Entry is an essential element of the charge of home invasion and the only evidence of entry was the threshold footprint photograph that McCormick took after Trooper *517Coulter had left her home.5 Thus, there is a reasonable probability that, had the jury heard an expert challenge the match of the two footprints, or even heard Guilmette’s counsel cross-examine the prosecution’s expert witness on the discrepancies between the photographs, the jury would have acquitted Guilmette.
Guilmette’s claim of prejudice is farther supported by the weakness of the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court has explained that “a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Clinkscale v. Carter, 375 F.3d 430, 445 (6th Cir.2004). McCormick’s eyewitness identification of Guilmette, the only solid evidence linking Guilmette to the crime, was weak and tentative, especially at trial. We have repeatedly expressed our “ ‘grave reservations concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony.’ ” Clinkscale, 375 F.3d at 445 (quoting Blackburn v. Foltz, 828 F.2d 1177, 1186 (6th Cir.1987)). In light of the scant evidence of Guilmette’s guilt, his counsel’s ineffectiveness was even more prejudicial that it could otherwise have been.
Thus, I respectfully dissent.

. The majority justifies ignoring Abela by implying that it is an outlier case, bracketed between Luberda v. Trippett, 211 F.3d 1004 (6th Cir.2000), which preceded it, and Mun-son, which succeeded it in 2004. But I do not read Abela as being in any way inconsistent with these other cases and thus cannot justify reading it out of existence. To be sure, the patchwork of cases in this area is complicated, but the fact remains that each case affirms the proposition relevant in this case that we are to look to the last reasoned Michigan opinion to determine if it was based on procedural or substantive grounds.
Additionally, I take issue with the majority’s statement that the it is "clear” (supra at 510 n. 3) on what grounds the state trial court relied in Luberda. My only thought is that the majority bases its assumption that the state court relied solely on substantive, non-procedural grounds upon the opinion’s vague pronouncement that the state court relied on "alternative grounds.” Luberda, 211 F.3d at 1006. As this is not at all clear from the opinion, and it is possible that the state court in Luberda included procedural findings in their "alternative grounds,” I cannot agree with the majority that Luberda constitutes binding precedent inconsistent with the cases that followed, i.e., Abela.

. Guilmette also argues that, even if he had procedurally defaulted, his appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal and that this deficiency prejudiced him because, had the appellate court known of the trial counsel’s oversight, there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome, satisfying the "good cause” test required to overcome procedural default under Mapes v. Coyle, 111 F.3d 408, 428 (6th Cir.1999). As Guilmette's claims were not procedurally defaulted, I need not reach this claim. However, as I note below, Guilmette has successfully stated a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and this would likely satisfy the "good cause” test to overcome any procedural default.

. To prove home invasion, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused entered into the home. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.110a(2).

. See, e.g., Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524-29, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (holding that the petitioner was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because his counsel had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into potentially mitigating evidence with respect to sentencing because "counsel chose to abandon their investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to sentence strategy impossible.”); Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251, 258-260 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel not to call a witness who could have created an alternative theory of the case); Combs, 205 F.3d at 287-88 (holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate adequately his own expert witness, who testified that, despite the defendant's intoxication at the time of the crime, the defendant nevertheless was capable of forming the requisite intent to commit the crimes); Sims v. Livesay, 970 F.2d 1575, 1580-81 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct an investigation into certain physical evidence that would have undermined the prosecution's theory that the victim was shot at a distance).

. The majority asserts that the jury could have found entry even without the footprint in the doorway because kicking in a door without entering is "impossible” (supra at 512), as opposed to, apparently, using a crowbar to force open a door. It is unclear on what basis this assertion is made. It certainly is not based on anything in the record, so perhaps it is based on some heretofore unrecognized species of judicial notice based on my colleagues’ extensive experience in kicking in doors. I unfortunately cannot comment on the veracity of their observation, having not had the opportunity to kick in a statistically sufficient set of doors in my lifetime.
If I were to take notice of information outside of the record, I would look to Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Motion, with which I am marginally familiar from high school physics. If I recall correctly, according to Newton’s First Law, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. This provides some support for the majority’s reasoning that when a person kicks his leg at a door and the door gives way, that person’s momentum should continue in the direction of the kick, necessarily causing his foot to cross the plane of the doorway. However, this Law has an important caveat: an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Similarly, under Newton’s Third Law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As applied here, when a person kicks a door, the door sends an equal force in the opposite direction up the leg of the kicker, acting as the "external force” provided for in the First Law. Thus, the kicker could essentially bounce back due to the reverse force on his body so that no part of him would cross the threshold, rather than falling forward through the door, as the majority suggests is a physical, and legal, certainty.
However, just as I have no basis from which to judge the majority's assertion because I have little experience in kicking in doors, I have no real basis to rely on my understanding of the physics at issue because I am a judge, not a physicist. Thus, I look solely to the evidence in the record in making my legal determinations: the circumstances regarding the disputed picture of the footprint on the threshold.