Terrence Henderson v. Carmen Palmer, 730 F.3d 554

Henderson was convicted in Michigan for armed robbery and carjacking based on a photographic lineup that allegedly included false evidence of an attorney’s presence.
Corr, Henderson’s attorney, later denied being present at the lineup, but trial records show Corr present; Henderson's appellate counsel did not raise this issue on direct appeal.
Henderson’s direct appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals was denied; his later Michigan Supreme Court leave-to-appeal was untimely due to misdated deadlines.
Henderson filed a first motion for relief from judgment in 2005, which the trial court denied; he proceeded pro se with a late appeal that arrived just after the deadline due to prison mail delays.
The Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed Henderson’s post-judgment appeal as untimely; the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave without addressing merits.
Henderson filed a federal habeas petition in 2007; the district court held some claims procedurally defaulted and others unexhausted, then denied relief, leading to this appeal which raised four claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Maples excuses procedural default.	Henderson—Maples governs; late filing due to prison mail delays allowed timely filing.	Appellee—Maples not applicable to procedural defaults on these specific claims.	Maples excuses default; claims not procedurally defaulted.
Whether second, third, and fifth claims are procedurally defaulted under Rule 6.508(D)(3).	Henderson's appellate counsel's ineffectiveness could excuse default; district court failed to apply Maples.	Rule 6.508(D)(3) bars claims not raised on direct appeal; default to be upheld.	Remanded for decision on merits; Maples applied and default not clearly enforced.
Whether Henderson's first claim (ineffective assistance of appellate counsel) is procedurally defaulted or merits-based.	First claim was raised in the first motion for relief from judgment; not procedurally defaulted, merits must be reached.	If defaulted, court should deny on merits or procedure; district court erred in not addressing merits.	Remanded to district court to consider merits and possible evidentiary hearing.
Whether the district court erred in denying relief on the remaining claims on procedural grounds.	Procedural default was not properly established due to Maples; claims should be considered on the merits.	State courts had disposed of the claims on procedural grounds or merits; default applies.	Remanded for further proceedings consistent with Maples and related standards.

Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2003) (excusing procedural default when pro se prisoner timely delivers petition to prison mailbox)
Guilmette v. Howes, 624 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2010) (last reasoned state court decision controls default analysis; direct/ collateral review distinctions)
Jalowiec v. Bradshaw, 657 F.3d 293 (6th Cir. 2011) (procedural default framework for habeas review)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1989) (cause and prejudice exception to procedural default)
Skinner v. McLemore, 425 F.App’x 491 (6th Cir. 2011) (need unambiguous state-court reliance to invoke Rule 6.508(D) procedurally)