505 F. App'x 452
6th Cir.2012Background
- Miller was convicted by a Michigan jury of first-degree home invasion and second-degree criminal sexual conduct in August 2007.
- The trial court sentenced Miller to consecutive terms at the high end of the guidelines, after Miller asserted innocence throughout sentencing.
- The judge criticized Miller for not admitting guilt and urged him to apologize to his family and the victim.
- Miller moved for resentencing, arguing the sentence bore on his continued assertions of innocence; the trial court denied.
- On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the sentence, deeming no Fifth Amendment violation occurred; Michigan Supreme Court denied review.
- The district court granted habeas relief in part, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding no clearly established federal law supported Miller’s claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether penalty-stage remarks about lack of acceptance of responsibility violated the Fifth Amendment | Miller | Lafler | No (AEDPA: not clearly established) |
| Whether Mitchell v. United States governs the admissibility of inferences from innocence assertions at sentencing | Miller | Lafler | Not clearly established; fairminded disagreement prevents relief |
| Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Mitchell under AEDPA | Miller | Lafler | Not unreasonable; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred in applying § 2254(d)(2) after recharacterizing the claim | Miller | Lafler | Not reached as argument falls under (d)(1); relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (right against self-incrimination protections at sentencing; no adverse inferences)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1999) (no adverse inferences from silence regarding offense; sentencing context)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clearly established law for AEDPA standard; holdings vs dicta)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (requirement that law be squarely established by Supreme Court)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA)
- Ketchings v. Jackson, 365 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2004) (mitigation of Mitchell-based claims; distinguishable facts)
- United States v. Kennedy, 499 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2007) (Mitchell-related discussion; narrow scope in some contexts)
- Woodall v. Simpson, 685 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2012) (no-adverse-inference considerations; Carter instruction context)
- Caro v. United States, 597 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 2010) (remorse and mitigating factors; Mitchell-related interpretations)