Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Sharoc Richardson, Petitioner v. Sherman Campbell, Warden

/

' /

FILED

JAN 21 20/>

i

li

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SHAROO RICHARDSON

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

SHERMAN CAMPBELL

VS.

CONNIE HORTON

— RESPONDENT(^)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

SHAROO RICHARDSON

(Your Name)

CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

(inmate #207069)

(Address)

4269 WEST M-80, Kincheloe, Michigan 49784

(City, State, Zip Code)

None

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

QUESTION ONE: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE

JURY ON INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN THIS CASE?

QUESTION TWO: WAS TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO

CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES ABOUT THE VIOLENT NATURE OF THE DECEDENT?

QUESTION THREE: WAS TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO

INVESTIGATE, PREPARE AND CALL DEFENSE WITNESSES FOR TRIAL?

QUESTION FOUR:

WAS THERE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN WITHHOLDING

EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER?

i

LIST OF PARTIES

XXp^ All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

No. 13-009830-01-FC, Wayne

#1.

People v Sharoc Richardson

County Circuit Court (Detroit). Judgment entered April 9, 2014.

People v Sharoc Richardson, No. 322195, Michigan Court of

#2.

Appeals. Judgment entered May 26 2016

People v Sharoc Richardson, No.

#3.

Judgment entered May 2, 2017

Court.

September 12, 2017).

154108,

Michigan Supreme

(Rehearing was denied on

Sharoc Richardson v Thomas Winn, (U.S.D.C- later amended

#4.

case caption to SHERMAN CAMPBELL, and then later to CONNIE HORTON

to reflect change of wardens), No. 2:17-CV-13396, U.S. District

Judgment entered

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

March 24, 2021.

(later, Connie

Sharoc Richardson v Sherman Campbell,

#5.

Judgment

Horton), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,

entered November 2, 2021. CO A N'O, Zi-3-*{2-1.

ii

#6.

Sharoc.Richardson v Sherman Campbell, OOA No. 21-3421,

Motion for Rehearing for a Certificate of Appealability

was denied. Judgment entered December 21, 2021.

li

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinions Below

1

Jurisdiction

2

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .. . . 3

Statement of the Case

4

Reasons for Granting the Writ

5

Conclusion

15

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A - Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion

Appendix B - Michigan Supreme Court Denial of Leave to Appeal

Appendix C - Michigan Supreme Court Denial of Rehearing

Appendix D - U.S. District Court Dismissal of Habeas Petition

Appendix E - U.S. District Court Transfer of Motion for

Appointment of Counsel to U-S. Sixth Circuit Court

Appendix F - U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Denial of a

Certificate of Appealability

Appendix G - U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Denial of

Petition for Rehearing En Banc

iii

TART.F. OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

6

Sowders, 894 F.2d 792 (6th Cir. 1990)

Bagby v.__________

United States v. Browner, 889 F. 2d 549 (5th Cir. 1989) ... . 6

8,10

Strickland v. Washington 104 S.Ot. 2054 (1984) ....................

8

Bennett v. Scroggy, 793 F.2d 772 (6th Cir. 1986)

9

Smith v. Dretke, 417 F■3d 438 (5th Cir. 2005)

9

Tennyv. Dretke, 416 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2005) ..

9 ,11

Stanley v- Bartley 465 FM3d 810 (7th Cir. 2006)

10

Ramonez v. Berguis, 490 F. 3d 482 (6th Cir. 2007) ■'

11

r,rnseclose v. Bell, 130 F.3d 1161 (6th Oir. 1997)

11

Mr.f.lellan v. Rapelje 703 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2013)

12

Hodgson v. Warren, 622 FM3d 591 (6th Cir. 2010)

13

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) ..................

Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (1995) .............

Strickler v Green, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1999) ,h...

United States v- Agurs, 96 S.Ct. 2392 (1976) ..

Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320 (6th Cir- 1998) .........

Raygoza v. Hulick, 474 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2007)

STATUTES AND RULES

OTHER

None

iv

13

. . 13

14

14

14

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

xxpj por cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix _A-----to

the petition and is

2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32652

; or,

XXfUJ reported at

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

; or,

XX|X5f reported at 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55596

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

B

XX^3 For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix C>

to the petition and is

500

Mich. 980 and 501 Mich. 866

XXXjX] sported at

; or,

[ 3 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ 3 is unpublished.

Michigan Court of Appeals

court

The opinion of the____

to

the

petition

and

is

appears at Appendix —_

;or,

XXXp] reported at 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 1080

[ 3 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

to

JURISDICTION

XpQ For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was November 2, 2021

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the. United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: _ucem er----- ------------- , and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix —-—

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date)

(date) on

to and including---------in Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

X{C3j For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix _E-------

May 2

2017

XXjX ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

September 12, 2017 ^

a COpy 0f the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix _E------[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

(date) in

(date) on

to and including____

Application No. —A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

2.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1.

Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution,

for Due Process of Law

2.

Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution,

for guaranteed right of effective assistance of an attorney

when charged with a crime.

3.

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

for Equal Protection under law.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1.

28 U.S.C.A. 2243

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 4, 2013, Sharoc Richardson was arrested and charged

Premeditated Murder of Joyce Ann Merritt.

with: Count 1,

Following a jury trial, on April 9, 2014, Richardson was

2014,

On April 29

convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter.

Richardson was sentenced to 150 to 360 months imprisonment, and

2015, Richardson was

at a Resentencing Hearing on August 5

sentenced to 129 months to 30 years imprisonment.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on May

26, 2016, but vacated and remanded a portion of the sentence

dealing with restitution. After numerous request, on April 3,

2019, the trial court finally set forth an order vacating the

erroneously imposed restitution.

The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on May 2,

2017, and denied Rehearing on September 12 2017.

Timely Habeas Corpus relief was sought in the U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and was Dismissed

with Prejudice on March 24 2021. A Certificate of Appealability

but the U.S. District Court allowed Richardson to

was denied

appeal in Forma Pauperis.

On November 2, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit denied a Certificate of Appealability, and held that

Richardson's two Requests for Appointment of Counsel were Moot,

A timely Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied on December

21, 2021.

4.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

There are conflicts with case law from the Sixth Circuit and

other Federal Circuit Court of Appeals as well as conflicts with

case law rulings from this Court, which have been overlooked by

the lower courts, and will adversely effect similarly situated

cases in the future.

Secondly, there are prejudicial factual errors in the record

that Petitioner has demonstrated to be inaccurate, but are

repeatedly side-stepped by the lower courts, perhaps due to

comity.

For example, no "Special Investigator", as ordered by the

Trial Court has ever interviewed or contacted Petitioner at all,

and

such

assistance would have been very helpful in gathering

(See: Attached Trial Court

witnesses and evidence for trial.

Order).

Petitioner

affluent person

would have been rushed to trial facing life imprisonment on a

murder charge, for defending himself from a highly intoxicated

woman who attacked him in his sleep, with a substitute defense

lawyer appointed

does

not

believe

that

a more

10 days

earlier,

because

the previous court-

appointed attorney was too preoccupied with his invitation to the

to investigate, or

Presidential White House in Washington, DCinterview witnesses and consult

confinement for 170 days.

Under

with

Petitioner

in

pre-trial

the broad equitable powers of Habeas Corpus law,

pursuant to 28 U. S. C- 2243 and U-S. Supreme Court Rule 24, where

this Court may consider plain error, Petitioner sets forth the

following four assignments of error for this Court's review:

5.

QUESTION ONE: DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE

JURY ON INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN THIS CASE?

Bagby v. Sowders, 894 F•2d 792, 795-97 (6th Cir. 1990) (en

banc ) , suggested that habeas relief would be warranted only if

the failure to give the requested instruction was likely to have

resulted in the conviction of an innocent person". Id. at 795.

Foremost, Petitioner Richardson asserts that he is in fact

an innocent person, because under law, he had a right to defend

himself when being attacked with a knife.

Further, petitioner testified that he had no intent to kill,

and he was swinging the knife as a "REFLEX ACTION while under

attack and cornered in the living room in order to keep his

(See: Trial Transcript,

friend's attacking sister away from him.

page 101).

It should be noted that Petitioner Richardson testified that

he eventually passed out from alcohol intoxication while he was

looking for his working cell phone that was found later by police

m a rear bedroom where Petitioner Richardson had been sleeping

Pages 32 and 158, April 8,

(See: Trial Transcript

earlier.

2014).

Richardson believes that there is a conflict

between the Bagby Court and the Federal Court of Appeals in

United States v. Browner, 889 F. 2d 549 (5th Cir- 1989), where

manslaughter

granted with a voluntary

relief was

habeas

Petitioner

conviction where

the wife

of

a U.S.

Army private stabbed her

husband once (as with the instant case ), and maintained that she

The Browner Court above held that

did not intend to injure him.

the defendant was entitled to a lesser instruction of involuntary

manslaughter.

6.

Lastly, as a sub-claim Petitioner Richardson has contended

that his trial attorney was ineffective for agreeing to the jury

instructions and failing to request an involuntary manslaughter

instruction in light of the evidence and circumstances.

Petitioner Richardson believes that similarly situated cases

such as this will no doubt take place in the future across

America.

7.

WAS TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO

QUESTION TWO:

CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES ABOUT THE VIOLENT NATURE OF THE DECEDENT?

ineffective

that

his

Richardson

believes

Petitioner

assistance of counsel claims are the stronger grounds for relief,

in accord with the standards of Strickland v. Washington, 104

S.Ct. 2054 (1984).

In a self defense case such as this one especially with no

witnesses to the actual fight, it is logical and equitable that a

defense lawyer makes sure that the jury, is informed about the

violent nature of the person defendant asserts attacked him in

his sleep then cornered him in living room with a knife.

Petitioner Richardson believes there is a conflict with

another case from the Sixth Circuit, where it was discovered that

had a violent nature, and

the deceased woman was intoxicated

(See: Bennett v. Scroggy,

would likely use her knife on a man.

793 F.2d 772 (6th Cir. 1986).

Petitioner

the defendant in the Bennett case

Richardson was the only person who testified about the violent

Yet the Michigan Court of Appeals

nature of the decedent.

erroneously held several people testified to the violent nature

This is not true, and both lower Federal

of Joyce Merritt.

Similar to

Habeas Corpus Courts gave the State Appellate Court ruling the

presumption of correctness.

Trial Court record shows that the brother of the

Robert Brown, only

deceased > Danny Merritt, and his neighbor

testified about verbal "fights", and nothing about Joyce Merritt

The

attacking other people in the community.

The Bennett Court found that the testimony of others was

critical to Bennett's defense, not cumulative. and that his

defense counsel was ineffective.

8 .

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruling relied on by both lower

Federal Habeas Corpus Courts, held that Petitioner Richardson

could have "obtained affidavits from the two living witnesses",

Danny Merritt and Robert Brown mentioned above, after trial for

However, it should be plain that

his direct appeal as of right.

the witnesses should have been cross-examined about the violent

nature of Joyce Merritt while they were testifying in the

courtroom at the jury trial.

The outcome of Petitioner Richardson's trial would have been

crossmore favorable to him had defense counsel properly

and there is also a

examined the witnesses before the jury

conflict with the following two cases from the Federal Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In Smith v. Dretke, 417 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2005), the Court

held defense counsel was ineffective for failing to present

testimony by witnesses who could have supported the self-defense

testimony

about

the

defendant ’ s

corroborating

theory

by

(See also: Tenny v. Dretke, 416 F.3d

decedent's violent nature.

404 (5th Cir. 2005) (Holding counsel failed to investigate and

present the self-defense claim properly.).

Interestingly, the Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals

in Stanley v. Bartley, 465 F. 3d 810 (7th Cir. 2006), granted

to

the

regard

with

that

finding

relief,

corpus

habeas

prosecution's key witness, "if the lawyer had interviewed him

before trial, he might have told the lawyer things that would

have enabled effective cross-examination, (emphasis added).

The Stanley Court ruling is on point with Petitioner

Richardson's situation, and is in conflict with the Sixth Circuit

Court's decision.

9'-

QUESTION THREE: WAS TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO

INVESTIGATE PREPARE AND CALL WITNESSES FOR TRIAL?

Strickland vthe de novo review provision of

466 U.S. 668 (1984), Petitioner Richardson believes

Washington

that reasonable jurist will deduce that he demonstrated where he

had counsel in form, but not substance.

With

Foremost, no court has addressed Petitioner's complaint that

interviewed Petitioner in jail

no "Special Investigator" has ever

(See: Attached Order dated

as ordered by the Trial Court.

11/6/2013 from Trial Court.)

The Trial Court record will support that the first defense

because he was too

attorney withdrew from Petitioner's case

preoccupied with his invitation to the Presidential White House

appointed

in Washington, DC-, and a substitute attorney was

approximately 10 days before the murder trial began.

Petitioner Richardson submits that the substitute defense

interview

attorney did not have enough time to investigate,

witnesses and prepare for trial, especially with other clients.

Substitute defense counsel did not have time to inquire about the

missing "Special Investigator" who could have gathered a host of

different people in the neighborhood to testify about the violent

nature of the decedent.

This is plain where Petitioner's employer, Richard Truchan,

of his former

forth an affidavit asserting that one

set

employees , David Johnson, also knew about'the decedent's violent

interviewed by

neither witness was

However

reputation.

substitute defense counsel or a "Special Investigator .

Berguis ,

There is a conflict of case law where in Ramonez v_A

490 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2007) held counsel was ineffective due to

absence of a full

"guessing what witnesses might say" in

investigation.

10.

In a self-defense murder trial, it is important that the

jury be made aware of the violent nature of the decedent, and

contrary to the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, petitioner was

the.only person to testify about Joyce Merritt's violent nature.

Now, the lower State and Federal Courts have set forth that

from

Petitioner Richardson should have gathered affidavits

and

Merritt's

violent

nature

Joyce

concerning

witnesses

reputation for appeals after trial.

that

This is Petitioner Richardson's main complaint,

substitute defense counsel was ineffective for failing to gather

many people from the neighborhood who could testify about the

violent nature and reputation of Joyce Merrittfrom

There is a conflict with a number of other cases

Federal Circuit Courts, such as in Groseclose v. Bell, 130 F.3d

1161 (1997), where habeas corpus relief was granted due to

a defense and call

counsel's failure to investigate, prepare

witnesses.

Defense counsel in McClellan v. Rapelje, 703 F.3d 344 (6th

Cir. 2013), was found to be "grossly deficient" in his failure to

interview numerous eyewitnesses, and the Court in Stanley—v^

granted habeas relief

Bartley, 465 F. 3d 810 (7th Cir. 2006)

where counsel's failure to interview any witnesses or prospective

witnesses was "a shocking dereliction of duty".

It should be noted that in this short murder trial where

Petitioner was facing life impriHonment for defending himself

against his friend's sister who, according to the Medical

times the legal limit of alcohol

Examiner, was found to be

intoxication, but still able to function, substitute defense

counsel did not interview anyone other than Petitioner in iail.

11.

With no eyewitnesses to the attack, Petitioner's employer,

the only witness he could contact from

Truchan

confinement, was just as valuable of a witness as Danny Merritt

and Robert Brown, and in Hodgson v. Warren, 622 F. 3d 591 (6th

Richard

Cir. 2010), the Court held counsel's failure to call exculpatory

witnesses could not be defended as a strategic decision.

Petitioner testified he was sleeping and still drunk when

attacked, then passed out while looking for his cell phone.

Police reported an additional cell phone was found later by

officers in a rear bedroom where Petitioner was sleeping earlier.

The above facts prove substitute defense counsel did not

investigate, as a lawyer of average skill would have first

questioned Petitioner in jail as to why he did not call for help

Then

with the cell phone on the table in the living room,

counsel would see the above mentioned police report.

The State Appellate Court wrongly slanted it's opinion

towards the prosecution's theory of the case, in that inter alia,

Petitioner never testified he "easily" pushed Merritt off of him

during the encounter, and yet, even with proof in the trial

transcripts, the lower Federal Courts afforded the Michigan Court

The State

of Appeals decision "the presumption of correctness".

Appellate Court fails to mention anything concerning the decedent

times the legal limit of alcohol intoxication at the

was

autopsy, but was still able to travel around the block.

Lastly, the lower Courts hold a "Catch 22" that Petitioner

had no duty to retreat, but affirmed his conviction when he

Under the

testified defending himself with a "reflex action".

facts of the case, substitute defense counsel's "reasonable trial

strategy" should have been to show the jury by living room photos

or a floor plan that his client had no escape from the cornering

attack, supporting Petitioner's self-defense claim.

12.

QUESTION FOUR; WAS TH-ERE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN WITHHOLDING

EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER?

Contrary to this Court's ruling in Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.s. 83 (1963), the prosecution violated due process of law by

withholding favorable evidence from the defense and jury.

Petitioner Richardson asserts that the outcome of the trial

would have been "exculpatory" had the jury heard the truth about

the decedent's 5 or 6 pending arrest warrants, and the jailrecorded telephone calls of petitioner trying to gather witnesses

who had been assaulted with knives by the decedent.

This information to the triers of fact would have shown that

Petitioner was lawfully defending himself from a knife-welding

woman wanted by police for prostitution and street fights.

The prosecution mentioned the jail-recorded phone calls in

open court but upon reviewing the calls later, the prosecution

did not want the jury to hear such "exculpatory" information.

(See: Trial Transcript, Page 9, April 7, 2014).

Exculpatory information should be presented to the jury, in

accord with Kyles v. Whitley 115 S.Qt. 1555 (1995). As held by

this Court in Kyles, there was "a reasonable probability" of a

different result at trial had this favorable and "exculpatory"

information been disclosed to the jury.

Petitioner Richardson contends that he has met the 3-factor

Green, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (1999), in that, (1)

and (3) The evidence was material.

13.

There is also a conflict of case law with United States v.

96 S.Ct. 2392 (1976), where this Court held that the

Agurs

prosecution must disclose favorabliH evidence whether or not it is

requested.

It should be noted that the favorable information (in this

case pending arrest warrants and jail-recorded telephone calls),

were "wholly...in the sole control of the government", as held in

Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 344 (6th Cir. 1998).

Lastly, it can be seen here where substitute defense

counsel,j who was appointed only 10 days before this murder trial

began, and rushed to trial without investigating, was ineffective

for failing to follow-up with the jail-recorded calls that the

prosecution mentioned briefly in open court when the jury was not

present. In Raygoza v. Hulick, 474 F-3d 958 (7th Cir. 2007),

it was held that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to

offer telephone records that would have corroborated Raygoza's

defense.

14.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

15.