# Brown v. Huss

> District Court, E.D. Michigan · August 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10216934

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Michigan
- **Decided:** August 24, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10216934

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SANTONYO A. BROWN,

Petitioner, Case No. 18-12670
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
v.

ERICA HUSS, Warden,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS [1] AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
In 2015, Santonyo Brown was tried for shooting Mike Cobb. Although Cobb
unequivocally testified that the person on trial was the person who shot him, some of
his testimony was internally inconsistent or contradicted prior statements to the
police. And Brown and another witness both testified that Brown was not the shooter.
A Michigan jury apparently credited Cobb’s account over Brown’s and convicted
Brown of, among other things, assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Brown’s
conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Brown has now come to federal court, seeking a writ of habeas corpus. He
primarily argues that the evidence at trial was not sufficient for a rational trier of
fact to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was the person who shot Cobb. As
explained below, the Court believes that the state appellate courts reasonably
rejected this insufficient-evidence claim. So the Court will not grant Brown a writ.
The following are the facts relating to the shooting as stated by the Michigan

Court of Appeals.
“Sometime between the late night of June 24, 2014, and the hours just after
midnight on June 25, 2014, Mike Cobb was shot while riding his bicycle towards” a
donut shop in Detroit. People v. Brown, No. 334810, 2018 WL 296112, at *1 (Mich.
Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018). “Cobb was riding towards the donut shop when he crossed
paths with two young men coming from an alley behind the shop. . . . Cobb testified
that he rode past them, close enough to reach out and touch them, he heard one of

them say, ‘That’s Mike!’ Cobb recognized one of the individuals as [Santonyo Brown].”
Id. “Shortly after riding past them, Cobb began to feel dizzy and crashed into a pole.”
Id. Cobb was injured but made his way to the donut shop where two people in the
shop helped Cobb to his house, which was a few blocks away. Id. “Upon arriving home,
Cobb laid down on his bed and fell asleep for about two hours. When he woke up,
Cobb found himself in a bloody bed, and realized for the first time that he might have

been shot. Cobb got up and sought assistance from his neighbor.” Id.
“While at the hospital, the police interviewed Cobb about what happened. Cobb
reported that he was shot by a young man he recognized from [a] car wash. Cobb also
remarked that he recognized the young man from an altercation they had regarding
a prostitute, and gave a physical description.” Brown, 2018 WL 296112, at *1. “The
police later returned with a photo lineup and Cobb identified defendant’s brother,
who looked similar and had a similar build.” Id. Brown’s “brother[,] [Aaron Brown,]
was initially arrested, but later cleared. In the interim, the police had visited Cobb
again with a second photo lineup, and Cobb identified [Santonyo Brown]. [Brown]

was subsequently arrested.” Id.
At trial, Cobb unequivocally identified Brown as the shooter. (ECF No. 8,
PageID.405–06.) But some of his testimony was contradictory or was inconsistent
with earlier statements to police. (See e.g., ECF No. 8, PageID.403, 409–10, 416.)
Marquisha Dahan testified that her boyfriend at the time, John Petty, had shot Cobb.
(ECF No. 8, PageID.526, 535.) Brown also testified in his own defense; he told the
jury that at the time of the shotting, he was babysitting his brother’s children. (ECF

No. 8, PageID.571.) There was additional testimony, including from police officers.
Having considered all the evidence, a jury convicted Brown of assault with
intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and possession of a firearm during a
felony. Brown, 2018 WL 296112, at *1. For the assault conviction, Brown was given
4 to 10 years’ imprisonment; for the felony firearm conviction, he was given two years’
imprisonment; the sentences were consecutive. Id. Earlier this year, Brown was

released on parole. See MDOC Offender Tracking Information System,
https://perma.cc/8X2Z-RGNG.

On appeal, Brown argued that the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction
and that the conviction was against the great weight of the evidence. The Michigan
Court of Appeals denied both claims and affirmed Brown’s convictions. See generally
People v. Brown, No. 334810, 2018 WL 296112 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2018). The
Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Brown, 913 N.W.2d 302,
302 (Mich. 2018).

In August 2018, Brown came to federal court. In particular, he filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1) Brown’s petition raises the same two claims
he raised on direct appeal: the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction and that
the conviction was against the great weight of the evidence. (ECF No. 1, PageID.23.)
The Warden has responded (ECF No. 7), and so the petition is ready for disposition.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) (and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 in particular) “confirm[s] that state courts are the principal forum for
asserting constitutional challenges to state convictions.” Harrington v. Richter, 562
U.S. 86, 103 (2011); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 182 (2011). Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d), if a claim was “adjudicated on the merits in State court
proceedings,” this Court cannot grant habeas corpus relief on the basis of that claim

“unless the adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision” (1) “that was contrary
to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or (2) “that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
court proceeding.” But if the state courts did not adjudicate a claim “on the merits,”
this “‘AEDPA deference’ does not apply and [this Court] will review the claim de
novo.” Bies v. Sheldon, 775 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir. 2014).

The Court begins with Brown’s claim that there was insufficient evidence for
a jury to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The focus of this claim is
that there was not sufficient evidence that Brown was the person who shot Cobb. (See
ECF No. 1, PageID.23.)
As noted, Brown presented this claim to the Michigan Court of Appeals. In
rejecting the claim, the court found that Brown’s “argument that there was

insufficient evidence to find that defendant was the shooter lacks merit.” Brown, 2018
WL 296112, at *2. The court explained, “Cobb was close enough to see [Brown] as he
rode past [him], had an unobstructed view of [Brown], and testified that there was
enough light for him to see [Brown].” Id. “Moreover,” the Michigan Court of Appeals
explained, “Cobb’s attention was drawn to defendant because he recognized
defendant as someone he had seen at a nearby car wash a few times, and had an

altercation with him a few days earlier regarding a prostitute.” Id. The state appellate
court recognized that there were “conflicting testimonies regarding whether Cobb
knew [Brown’s] nickname [‘Tone’] and whether [Cobb] provided the police with the
nickname,” but it found that it needed to “resolve that conflict in favor of the
prosecution.” Id. And while “Cobb initially chose [Brown’s] brother at the first photo
lineup,” the Michigan Court of Appeals found that “testimony indicated that [Brown]
and his brother [Aaron] shared roughly the same height and weight, and that they
looked somewhat similar to one another. Consequently, it was not unreasonable for
Cobb to initially identify [Brown’s] brother.” Id. “Further,” said the state appellate

court, “Cobb corrected any such mistake when he identified [Brown] at the second
photo lineup. Moreover, Cobb had no difficulty identifying [Brown] by his features in
court.” Id. In addressing Brown’s argument “that Cobb’s physical description was not
close to [Brown’s] actual height and weight,” the Michigan Court of Appeals pointed
out that “Cobb admitted that he was not good at measurements” and “that
identification does not require someone to know the suspect’s weight or height.” Id.
at *3. The Michigan Court of Appeals thus found that sufficient evidence supported

Brown’s conviction.
And although not in the context of addressing Brown’s sufficiency-of-the-
evidence claim, the Michigan Court of Appeals also explained, “The jury also heard
Cobb’s varying testimony regarding collateral matters, such as the time the shooting
took place, and was presented with evidence explaining why Cobb might be having
some difficulty recounting precisely what happened that night, but chose to credit

Cobb anyways.” Brown, 2018 WL 296112, at *4. According to the state appellate
court, “The jury simply carried out its duty of weighing the evidence and determining
credibility, and resolved the competing testimonies in favor of Cobb.” Id.
Given all of that explanation from the Michigan Court of Appeals, it clearly
adjudicated Brown’s insufficient-evidence claim “on the merits” as that phrase is used
in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). That means this Court can grant habeas corpus relief on the
basis of Brown’s insufficient-evidence claim only if “the adjudication of the claim . . .
resulted in a decision” (1) “that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law” or (2) “that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
court proceeding.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Here, Jackson v. Virginia supplies the clearly established law. Under that
Supreme Court decision, Brown must show that “after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution,” no “rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (1979). But because § 2254(d) applies, habeas corpus relief cannot be

granted upon that showing. Instead, Brown must further show that the Michigan
Court of Appeals’ finding that a rational trier of fact could convict was objectively
unreasonable. In other words, deference is owed to the trier of fact under Jackson and
then further deference is owed to the Michigan Court of Appeals’ finding that Brown
had not cleared Jackson’s threshold for relief. See Tanner v. Yukins, 867 F.3d 661,
672 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[T]wo layers of deference apply, one to the jury verdict, and one

to the state appellate court.”).
For the most part, Brown does not make a direct attempt to clear that twice-
elevated hurdle. Instead, he focuses on § 2254(d)(2), i.e., Brown primarily argues that
the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision was based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts. (ECF No. 1, PageID.28.)
In particular, Brown takes issue with the following statements by the state
appellate court:
Cobb was close enough to see defendant as he rode past defendant, had
an unobstructed view of defendant, and testified that there was enough
light for him to see defendant. Moreover, Cobb’s attention was drawn to
defendant because he recognized defendant as someone he had seen at
a nearby car wash a few times, and had an altercation with him a few
days earlier regarding a prostitute. Thus, not only was Cobb able to
visually recognize defendant, he was also able to identify defendant by
name.
Brown, 2018 WL 296112, at *2. Brown points out that Cobb testified that as he rode
past, someone said “That’s Mike,” but Cobb did not know who made the statement.
(ECF No. 1, PageID.29.) Brown also points out that when a police officer visited Cobb
in the hospital, Cobb stated that three months before the shooting, Brown had told
Cobb “I should crack your head,” yet, at trial, Cobb stated that Brown made that
statement two days before the shooting. (ECF No. 1, PageID.30.) Brown further
highlights that a police officer who talked to Cobb wrote, “Victim states, ‘This is Tone,
he works at car wash, he shot me,” but then, at trial, Cobb indicated that it was the
police who told Cobb the name “Tone.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.30.) Further, Brown points
out that Dahan testified that her former boyfriend was 5’ 9” and 145–150 pounds and
someone with her boyfriend at the time of the shooting was 5’ 5” and also about 145–
150 pounds; this is consistent with Cobb’s estimate of the shooter’s size whereas
Brown was 6’ 2” and 195 pounds. (ECF No. 1, PageID.25, 31.)
The Court acknowledges that Cobb’s testimony was at points somewhat
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with statements he made to police. Indeed, the
prosecution admitted at closing argument that “Michael Cobb’s testimony . . . it’s got
some warts.” (ECF No. 8, PageID.589.)
But the Court cannot say that when the evidence is construed in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, that the Michigan Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a
trier of fact could rationally vote to convict Brown was unreasonable or was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts. Although Cobb inconsistently testified
that the shooting occurred around 6:00 in the evening and 1:00 in the morning (ECF
No. 8, PageID.409–10, 440), he also stated that there was enough light for him to see
the person whom he rode past (id. at PageID.434–35). And whether it was months
before or days before the shooting, it remains that Cobb testified that he knew Brown

from prior incidents. (Id. at PageID.427–31, 439.) As for Cobb’s estimate of the size
of the shooter (id. at PageID.416), the Michigan Court of Appeals reasonably
determined that Cobb was not good at measurements (see id. at PageID.433–34). As
for Brown’s nickname “Tone,” a police officer testified that Cobb told her that the
suspect’s nickname was “Tone.” (Id. at PageID.482.) And even if it was the other way
around and the officer told Cobb about the nickname (see id. at PageID.422), that

does not change the fact that Cobb picked Brown out of the photo array (id. at
PageID.400–403). In the end, Cobb was unequivocal that the person on trial was the
person who shot him. (Id. at PageID.405–06.) And in applying Jackson, the Michigan
Court of Appeals was not supposed to “reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the
credibility of witnesses, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury.” Tanner v.
Yukins, 867 F.3d 661, 672 (6th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the Court finds that Brown
has not cleared § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2).
In short, § 2254(d) prevents this Court from granting Brown habeas corpus

relief on his claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient for a conviction.

Brown might also be asserting that his convictions are against the great weight
of the evidence. (ECF No. 1, PageID.23.) To the extent he does raise that claim, it is
not a claim upon which this Court can grant a writ of habeas corpus. Lay v. Skipper,
No. 20-1391, 2021 WL 1884060, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 28, 2021); Phillips v. Vashaw, No.
20-1280, 2020 WL 5758680, at *1 (6th Cir. July 30, 2020). And even if the claim were

a basis for the writ, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed and rejected that claim.
Brown, 2018 WL 296112, at *3–4. So for reasons similar to those set out above,
§ 2254(d) would bar habeas corpus relief.

As explained, the state appellate court’s decision was not contrary to Supreme
Court precedent, an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, or an

unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly,
Brown’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED because reasonable jurists could not
disagree with the Court’s resolution of Brown’s claims, nor conclude that the
constitutional issue deserves encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Should Brown nonetheless choose to appeal, he
may do so without prepaying the appellate filing fee.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2021

s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10216934. Public record. Not legal advice.