531 F. App'x 576
6th Cir.2013Background
- Stevenson petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a Michigan conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct; the district court denied the petition but issued a COA on two claims.
- The charging information referenced an ambiguous period: winter 2004, potentially the winters of 2003-2004 or 2004-2005.
- At trial (2006), the victim identified Stevenson and the prosecutor argued the offense occurred in winter 2003-2004, while Stevenson offered an out-of-state alibi.
- After appellate counsel obtained alibi records showing Stevenson was in Pennsylvania in the 2003-2004 winter, the prosecutor shifted theory to winter 2004-2005; Stevenson sought a new trial on due process grounds.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals held Stevenson had adequate notice and no prejudice from trial counsel’s performance; the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
- The district court denied habeas relief under AEDPA, and this Court affirms, applying de novo review to the law and clear-error review to facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice and defense rights | Stevenson argues post-trial change violated due process notice. | State argues information and notice were adequate; amendment allowed if not prejudicial. | No due process violation; adequate notice; no prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to investigate alibi and pursue a proper date. | No prejudice; record shows defense choice reasonable and not likely to change outcome. | No deficient performance causing prejudice; Strickland not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence to support conviction)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference and unreasonable application standard)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (doubly deferential review under Strickland and AEDPA)
- Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1986) (due-process notice not automatically violated by imperfect indictment)
- Miskel v. Karnes, 397 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (no clearly established law supporting petitioner’s argument)
- Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) (time windows in child abuse prosecutions and notice)
- People v. Higuera, 625 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (amendment of information to cure defects without prejudice)