NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 18a0134n.06
No. 17-1729
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ASHLY DRAKE SMITH, ) FILED
Mar 15, 2018
)
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant, )
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
)
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
THOMAS WINN, )
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
)
Respondent-Appellee. )
)
Before: KEITH, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Ashly Smith was convicted in Michigan state court of
robbery at gunpoint. He later sought habeas relief in federal court, arguing that his trial counsel
was ineffective because she declined to call alibi witnesses who could not provide him with a
consistent alibi. The district court denied relief. We affirm.
The state courts have decided Smith’s claims on the merits, so we take the facts as the
state courts found them. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170,
181-82 (2011). At around 7:30 p.m. one night, Shawn Kelly heard someone come into his
house. Moments later, Smith entered his room with a gun and took his wallet, marijuana,
cellphone, and other electronics. Before Kelly called the police, he wrote on Facebook a racially
disparaging remark about Smith, who is of mixed race. He also wrote that he was “pretty sure”
that Smith was the robber.
No. 17-1729, Smith v. Winn
After Smith was charged, his appointed counsel learned that some of his friends had been
with him the night of the robbery and could possibly provide him an alibi. She subpoenaed them
to testify at Smith’s bench trial, but later learned that none had been with Smith throughout the
night and thus that none could fully account for his whereabouts on it. She also worried that they
might give conflicting accounts (as indeed they did at a later hearing).
Counsel decided not to call the friends at trial and instead to focus on discrediting Kelly,
the state’s main witness. The trial judge doubted Kelly at first, but in the end found Smith guilty
and sentenced him to 15 to 22 total years’ imprisonment. Smith appealed, arguing that counsel’s
decision not to develop and to present an alibi defense amounted to ineffective assistance of
counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Michigan Court of Appeals
eventually affirmed his conviction by a 2-1 vote, and by a 4-3 vote the Michigan Supreme Court
denied him leave to appeal. See People v. Smith, No. 312721, 2014 WL 1320243 (Mich. Ct.
App. Apr. 1, 2014) (per curiam); People v. Smith, 861 N.W.2d 630 (Mich. 2015). Smith then
petitioned for federal habeas relief. The district court denied his habeas claims but certified them
for appeal.
We review the claims de novo. See Phillips v. White, 851 F.3d 567, 575 (6th Cir. 2017).
At the same time our review is highly deferential, since under Strickland we may deem counsel’s
performance inadequate only if she made an error “so serious” that she effectively provided no
counsel at all. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. And because we consider Smith’s Strickland claims
after the state courts have already denied them, we cannot grant relief on those claims unless (as
relevant here) the state courts unreasonably applied Strickland. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
If “there is any reasonable argument” that counsel looked as far as necessary into the alibi
-2-
No. 17-1729, Smith v. Winn
defense, then for our purposes counsel’s performance was adequate. Harrington v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011).
Here, counsel had ample reason not to call Smith’s friends as alibi witnesses. The friends
likely would not have strengthened her position—i.e., that Smith was not the robber—since none
could say for certain where Smith was throughout the night. And the state could have used that
uncertainty to strengthen its own position—i.e., that Smith was at Kelly’s house, robbing Kelly.
Meanwhile counsel had another witness to work with: Kelly himself, who had a motive to lie,
given his open racial hostilities, and who had been only “pretty sure” that Smith was the robber.
Counsel exposed these flaws in the state’s case on cross-examination, and reasonably chose not
to give the state a chance to do the same to hers. See Robins v. Fortner, 698 F.3d 317, 330-31
(6th Cir. 2012). Thus there is a “reasonable argument” that counsel’s strategy at trial “satisfied
Strickland’s deferential standard.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 105.
Smith argues, however, that counsel was ineffective before trial—specifically ten days
before, when under Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 768.20(1) she needed to file a notice of any alibi
witnesses she might call. Counsel did not file a notice, apparently because she did not interview
any alibi witnesses until just before trial began. Without a notice, Smith contends, counsel could
not have called those witnesses if she wanted to. But Michigan law leaves judges the discretion
to admit alibi evidence even without an alibi notice. See People v. Travis, 505 N.W.2d 563, 568
(Mich. 1993). And the state courts found that the trial judge would have admitted that evidence
here—a finding that Smith does not rebut and that we therefore must accept. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(e)(1). Thus counsel made no “serious” error by waiting until after the notice deadline to
investigate the alibi defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
-3-
No. 17-1729, Smith v. Winn
Smith also argues that counsel did not investigate the alibi defense fully enough. But
counsel need only investigate a defense until she reasonably decides not to bring it. See id. at
690-91. And Smith does not explain how further investigation would have improved the alibi
defense—i.e., aligned his friends’ stories or revealed friends with better perspectives on the
night’s events. Cf. Foster v. Wolfenbarger, 687 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir. 2012). Counsel
reasonably decided not to investigate further a defense that she reasonably decided not to bring.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
-4-