RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 2 Ware v. Renico No. 02-2300
ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0174P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 04a0174p.06 ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Detroit, Michigan, for
Appellant. Janet A. Van Cleve, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________
_________________
OPINION
GAMELIEL WARE , X _________________
Petitioner-Appellant, - BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Gameliel Ware
-
- No. 02-2300 appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of
v. - habeas corpus, which alleged various errors related to his
> state court jury trial and conviction on counts of murder,
, assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm
PAUL RENICO, Warden, -
Respondent-Appellee. - during the commission of a felony. We AFFIRM.
N I
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. Ware and his co-defendant, Lamont Card, were tried and
No. 01-74252—Avern Cohn, Senior District Judge. convicted before separate juries in the Circuit Court of Wayne
County, Michigan. The events giving rise to Ware’s
Argued: April 27, 2004 prosecution and conviction occurred during the early morning
hours of February 17, 1994, as Ware and Card were leaving
Decided and Filed: June 10, 2004 a party in Detroit. They asked two individuals, Carlos Graves
and Marcus Williams, for a ride home. Graves and Williams
Before: MARTIN and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; BELL, agreed to drive them home, and the four men got into
Chief District Judge.* Graves’s car; Graves was driving, Williams was in the front
passenger seat, Ware was in the back seat behind Williams,
_________________ and Card was in the back seat behind Graves. Williams, the
key prosecution witness at Ware’s trial, testified that he saw
COUNSEL Card shoot Graves in the head. Then, according to Williams,
Card turned the gun on him and shot him in the ear, causing
ARGUED: Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Detroit, Michigan, for him to slump over to the side. As Williams slumped over, he
Appellant. Janet A. Van Cleve, OFFICE OF THE was shot a second time – this time in the right shoulder – but
he did not know who fired this second shot. Williams did
testify, however, that after the shots were fired, he saw Ware
*
reach forward and put the car into park. He also testified that
The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, Chief United States District Ware and Card then proceeded to pull Graves and him out of
Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
1
No. 02-2300 Ware v. Renico 3 4 Ware v. Renico No. 02-2300
the car, dump them in the street, and drive off in Graves’s car. ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but the Michigan Court
While Williams survived this attack, Graves unfortunately of Appeals reversed and reinstated Ware’s convictions. The
died from his injuries. The police located Graves’s car later Michigan Supreme Court declined to review that decision.
that day, parked on a street near Card’s home.
Ware then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
Officer Fred Moore arrested Ware in Ware’s home that district court. In a comprehensive opinion, the district court
same day. There is some dispute regarding the circumstances addressed each of Ware’s claims but ultimately concluded
of Officer Moore’s entry into Ware’s home. Apparently Ware that they lacked merit. Accordingly, the district court denied
was not at home when Officer Moore arrived, but Ware’s the petition, but granted a certificate of appealability with
brother, Chappell Ware, answered the door. According to respect to the following issues:
Officer Moore, Chappell Ware let him into the home and
allowed him to wait there until Ware’s arrival. According to [1] Where trial counsel failed to offer evidence
Chappell Ware, on the other hand, Officer Moore entered the concerning the circumstances of the arrest on the
home without consent and without a warrant, and ordered that issue of voluntariness, failed to challenge the
its occupants stay in a certain area. Ware later returned home admissibility of the oral statement, and failed to
with his mother, at which point he was arrested and taken into challenge the statements as the fruit of a Fourth
custody. Amendment violation, Petitioner was denied his
Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of
Ware made two statements to the police in which he counsel.
admitted his role in the incident; the first was an oral
statement to Officer Moore and the second was a written [2] Petitioner was also denied effective assistance of
statement secured by Officer Dale Collins. In each statement, counsel in the following ways:
Ware admitted that he shot Williams, that he and Card
dragged the victims out of Graves’s car, and that they drove A. Trial counsel failed to request that Officer
away in the car. At trial, Ware moved to suppress the written Collins’ comment be stricken as non-
statement, arguing that it was involuntary because he could responsive.
not read or understand the waiver of rights form. After
holding a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Ware B. Trial counsel failed to ask for an instruction on
never attempted to suppress his oral statement in the trial self defense.
proceedings.
C. Trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial
After Ware’s motion for a directed verdict was denied, the misconduct and to the instructions.
jury convicted him of first-degree murder, felony murder,
assault with intent to murder, and possession of a firearm [3] Prosecutorial misconduct deprived Petitioner of due
during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life process in the following ways:
imprisonment without parole. A. The failure to comply with a request for
Instead of filing a direct appeal, Ware filed a motion for a discovery within seven days denied Mr. Ware
new trial. The trial court granted the motion, citing the right to present a defense and a fair trial.
No. 02-2300 Ware v. Renico 5 6 Ware v. Renico No. 02-2300
B. The prosecutor appealed to the jurors’ fears and (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
emotions in order to obtain a conviction. unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
C. The prosecutor argued facts not in evidence. evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
[4] The standard jury instruction on aiding and abetting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A decision is “contrary to” clearly
denied Petitioner the right to a properly charged jury established federal law “if the state court arrives at a
and to due process of law. conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court]
on a question of law or if the state court decides a case
[5] Petitioner’s conviction for felony murder should be differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially
reversed because the evidence is insufficient to indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,
support the verdict.[1] 413 (2000). A state court decision involves “an unreasonable
application” of clearly established federal law if “the state
II court identifies the correct governing legal principle from
[the] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a petition to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. A writ of habeas
for a writ of habeas corpus. Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433, corpus may not be issued simply because the state court
436 (6th Cir. 2003) (“This court applies de novo review to the issued a decision that erroneously or incorrectly applies
decision of the district court in a habeas corpus proceeding.”) clearly established law; rather, the state court’s application of
(citing Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 942 (6th Cir. 2000)). law must have been objectively unreasonable. Id. at 410-11.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides,
in pertinent part, as follows: Our thorough review of the facts and arguments in this case
leads us to the firm conclusion that Ware’s petition was
(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf properly denied. Because we are in accord with the district
of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’s persuasive and thorough reasoning with respect to
court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that each of the claims at issue in this appeal, we adopt that
was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings reasoning and find it unnecessary to offer any further
unless the adjudication of the claim– analysis. Therefore, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States; or
1
This statement of the issues was quoted by the district court from
W are’s request for a certificate of appe alability.