People of Michigan v. Homer Robert Clay
328236
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Homer Clay was arrested after an October 16, 2013 gas-station armed robbery; $386 from the register and an iced-tea bottle were left at the scene; a latent print from the bottle matched Clay.
- Witnesses (store employee and bystanders) observed a man with a gun run from the store and flee across nearby property; a K-9 tracked to discarded clothing and to where officers found Clay hiding in tall grass.
- Officers handcuffed Clay at the scene; while one hand was cuffed Detective Varley asked where the gun was; Clay replied he tossed it by the river and called it a starter pistol; a gun was later recovered and identified by the clerk.
- Clay made post-arrest statements at the station after Miranda warnings and waived rights; his phone contained contemporaneous texts suggesting consciousness of wrongdoing.
- At trial a Walker hearing admitted Clay’s on-scene (pre‑Miranda) statement under the public‑safety exception; Clay was convicted of armed robbery, felon‑in‑possession, and two felony‑firearm counts and sentenced as a fourth‑offense habitual offender.
- On appeal Clay argued ineffective assistance (several subclaims) and that the pre‑Miranda statement should have been suppressed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 180‑day rule (MCL 780.131) applicability | Prosecutor: rule inapplicable because defendant was a parolee, not an MDOC inmate in prison | Clay: counsel ineffective for failing to move to dismiss under 180‑day rule | Rule inapplicable to parolee awaiting trial; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless motion |
| Speedy‑trial (Barker factors) | Prosecution: delays were largely court/system delays and defendant-caused; no prejudice to defense | Clay: nearly 18‑month delay violated speedy‑trial rights; counsel ineffective for not asserting it | Delay was almost 18 months but defendant caused significant portion and did not assert right earlier; no prejudice to defense; no violation; counsel not ineffective |
| Cross‑examination / impeachment of ID witness | Prosecution: defense cross‑examined and used booking photo; strategy choices reasonable | Clay: counsel failed to properly impeach Emmans (misstated hair) and breached agreement about prior convictions | Record shows counsel attacked ID and used booking photo; no clear breach proved; strategic decisions insulated from ineffective‑assistance relief |
| Admission of pre‑Miranda statement | Prosecution: public‑safety exception justified asking location of gun while defendant in custody | Clay: custodial statement required Miranda warnings and should be excluded | Court admitted the statement: defendant was in custody but question was objectively necessary to neutralize an immediate public/officer safety risk; public‑safety exception applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (balancing test for speedy‑trial claims)
- New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (recognizing the public‑safety exception to Miranda)
- People v. Attebury, 463 Mich 662 (Michigan decision applying public‑safety exception)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims)