Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,343 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Permission to File Successive Habeas Petition Denied

In re Siggers, Case No. 08-1214 (C.A. 6, July 23, 2010)

In 1984, Darrell Siggers was convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting death of James Montgomery and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Siggers now seeks authorization from this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), to file a second or successive habeas petition with the district court. We deny his application.

I.


In 1984, Darrell Siggers was convicted by a jury in the Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit, Michigan of first-degree murder in the shooting death of James Montgomery. At sentencing, Siggers received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. He was denied relief on direct appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals on October 14, 1987, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied him leave to appeal on June 29, 1988.

In 1989, Siggers filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied the petition on the merits and this court affirmed the district court’s order. In 1996, Siggers filed another petition for habeas corpus in the district court and requested authorization from this court to allow the district court to consider the petition. This court denied the request for authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition, see In re Siggers, 132 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 1997), and the Supreme Court denied Siggers’s petition for certiorari. In 1998, Siggers made an additional federal filing, which this court treated as a § 2244(b) application and denied in 1999. See In re Siggers, No. 98-0192 (6th Cir. March 16, 1999) (unpublished order).

On March 14, 2004, Siggers filed a post-appeal motion in the Wayne County Circuit Court alleging that newly discovered evidence established his innocence and revealed violations of his constitutional rights. The original trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. The Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court denied Siggers leave to appeal.
 

 

Judge(s): Boggs, Moore and Gibson
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Danny Boggs
John Gibson
Karen Moore

 
Petitioner Lawyer(s) Petitioner Law Firm(s)
Laura Sutton

 
Respondent Lawyer(s) Respondent Law Firm(s)
Debra Gagliardi Michigan Attorney General's Office
B. Eric Restuccia Michigan Attorney General's Office
Janet Van Cleve Michigan Attorney General's Office

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
1 ! jack fuqua, a prosecution witness, testified that he withheld materiality and exculpatory nature of the newly discovered evidence, its exclusion could "in order for this court to grant permission to file a second or successive habeas cooperate with the investigation. the honorable john r. gibson, circuit judge of the united states court of appeals for the testimony at siggers's trial because of police intimidation. in pursuant to sixth circuit rule 206 at trial, the government produced testimony from two eyewitnesses stating that * from spearman, fuqua, and arnold, siggers has made a prima facie showing of a and fuqua, the evidence is exculpatory because it centers on witness statements that mcdonald, 514 f.3d 539, 544-45 (6th cir. 2008). movant. (b)(2) a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus siggers now brings this application, pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 2244(b)(3)(a), (quoting butler v. renico, 255 f.app'x 939, 943 (6th cir. 2007)). evidence that, absent that constitutional violation, and viewed in light of the evidence concerning whether his testimony was the result of police coercion. although this 28 u.s.c. 2244(b)(2). eighth circuit, sitting by designation. suppressed or otherwise the product of constitutional error. at best, siggers appears to argue that as long although his brief fails to articulate precisely why this evidence was not discoverable as a whole, no reasonable fact-finder would have found siggers guilty. see in re imprisonment. he was denied relief on direct appeal to the michigan court of appeals debra m. gagliardi, b. eric restuccia, michigan attorney general's to establish the prejudice component of cause and prejudice is to establish brady cleve, michigan attorney general's office, lansing, michigan, for no. 08-1214 (b)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been filing, which this court treated as a 2244(b) application and denied in 1999. see in re carrying a rifle and admitted to just having shot somebody. this context means simply sufficient allegations of fact together with some did not volunteer this evidence at the time of his trial testimony. court and requested authorization from this court to allow the district court to consider ! darryl dulin gave sworn testimony that he witnessed an allowed to consider all of his newly discovered evidence, even that unrelated to the alleged constitutional from that given at siggers's trial and there is no indication that the new testimony was - fuqua, arnold, or spearman. considering the strength of the evidence presented by the absent the alleged brady violations discussed above, we are to assume that fuqua and argued: october 16, 2009 current allegations rest on witness testimony he presented during an evidentiary hearing argued: laura kathleen sutton, manchester, michigan, for movant. janet a. van discovered evidence demonstrates his innocence and that the absence of this evidence finally, siggers must make a prima facie showing "so as to require the district arnold also averred that the police threatened to have public ii. ! william arnold, also a prosecution witness, gave sworn - no. 08-1214 in re siggers page 3 "would indeed constitute" a constitutional violation; and (3) clear and convincing application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior spearman's affidavit, it provides a basis to impeach jackson's trial testimony. second, the district court denied the petition on the merits and this court affirmed the district united states court of appeals through due diligence at the time of his 1999 filing, the testimony at the hearing differed evidence placing the defendant at the scene as factors in granting authorization to file a that "the constitutional errors he alleges probably resulted in the conviction of an sufficient allegations of fact together with some documentation that would `warrant a innocent person." in re siggers, 132 f.3d at 338 (6th cir. 1997); see also mcdonald, cir. 2005); see 28 u.s.c. 2244(b)(3)(c). "`prima facie' in this context means simply have been discovered previously through due diligence; (2) if true, the allegations constitutional error, and when viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, no reasonable discoverable sooner. accordingly, we will assume for purposes of argument that the _________________ amendments to the constitution. siggers's brief, however, fails to articulate how the statements were siggers was the shooter. in addition, the government presented physical evidence that on october 14, 1987, and the michigan supreme court denied him leave to appeal on as to the evidence obtained from darryl dulin and robert braxton, siggers vaguely asserts that > factual predicate of an applicant's claim must not have been "previously discoverable." denied siggers's petition for certiorari. in 1998, siggers made an additional federal respondent. on brief: laura kathleen sutton, manchester, michigan, for movant. door and admitted to having shot someone. also, jackson may have been impeached particular, fuqua now claims that toby red came to his house supreme court denied siggers leave to appeal. john r. gibson, circuit judge. in 1984, darrell siggers was convicted of city of detroit, michigan of first-degree murder in the shooting death of james revealed violations of his constitutional rights. the original trial judge held an the petition. this court denied the request for authorization to file a second or successive petition or at the time of the applicant's latest federal filing. id. we decline to decide 514 f.3d at 547 (emphasizing the lack of eyewitness testimony and absence of direct i. be viewed in light of the other evidence presented by the government. see id. no. 08-1214 in re siggers page 4 benefits withheld from his sister and her children if she did not by the supreme court, that was previously unavailable; or evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or in addition to his brady claims, siggers alleges claims of ineffective assistance ! bruce spearman came forward with an affidavit averring that his we deny his application. no. 08-1214 in re siggers page 5 for the sixth circuit habeas petition, see in re siggers, 132 f.3d 333 (6th cir. 1997), and the supreme court next, siggers must make a prima facie showing of a constitutional violation. specifically, the statute requires that: life imprisonment. siggers now seeks authorization from this court, pursuant to _________________ in re: darrell a. siggers, * constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review as he can prove at least one constitutional violation, i.e., the alleged brady violations, the court is then mcdonald, 514 f.3d at 545. specifically, the circuits differ as to whether they require evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. the michigan court of appeals and 1 shell casings consistent with those used in the shooting were found outside of siggers's apartment. this evidence is not contradicted by the newly discovered testimony of (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed court's order. in 1996, siggers filed another petition for habeas corpus in the district admit to murdering james montgomery. juror would have found him guilty. mcdonald, 514 f.3d at 546-47 ("`prima facie' in there is a circuit split, on which this circuit has yet to rule, concerning when the has made a prima facie showing that: (1) the factual predicate of his claim could not recommended for full-text publication before: boggs, moore, and gibson, circuit judges. no. 89-71175--denise page hood, district judge. siggers alleges constitutional error, namely brady violations, as the reason that jackson, night of the murder and admit to having shot someone; arnold first-degree murder in the shooting death of james montgomery and was sentenced to of counsel. however, those claims have previously been denied on the merits and are successive habeas petition). individual named toby red shoot james montgomery. held on his post-conviction relief motion in the wayne county circuit court in 2004. opinion decided and filed: july 23, 2010 not subject to further review. see 2244(b)(1); see also siggers, 132 f.3d at 337-38. inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have resulted." mcdonald, 514 f.3d at 545 in 1989, siggers filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. on march 14, 2004, siggers filed a post-appeal motion in the wayne county here, the affidavit of spearman, along with the testimony of arnold and fuqua, factual predicate of siggers's claim was not previously discoverable. court to engage in additional analysis"to determine whether, absent the alleged montgomery. at sentencing, siggers received a mandatory sentence of life seeking authorization from this court to file a second or successive petition for writ of evidence may have introduced some doubt concerning who committed the crime, it must application shall be dismissed unless june 29, 1988. fuqua, and arnold allegedly gave perjured or incomplete testimony at his trial. see constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have constitutional violation as required by 2244(b)(3)(c).1 n brady v. maryland, 373 u.s. 83 (1963). to establish a brady violation: "(1) the he discovered the following evidence: would help siggers establish that someone else committed the murder. with regard to if true, establishes a prima facie case of a brady violation. first, with regard to arnold office, lansing, michigan, for respondent. government at trial, siggers's allegations again fail to establish a prima facie showing x , from his trial resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights. impeaching; (2) the state must have suppressed the evidence, whether wilfully or documentation that would `warrant a fuller exploration in the district court.'"). here, siggers alleges that after his 1984 trial and his 1989 and 1996 habeas petitions, in 1984, darrell siggers was convicted by a jury in the recorder's court for the in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to materiality" (internal quotation marks omitted)). thus, regarding the evidence obtained grant authorization based on newly discovered evidence, we must conclude that siggers siggers, no. 98-0192 (6th cir. march 16, 1999) (unpublished order). testimony that he heard toby red come to fuqua's door on the iii. no. 08-1214 in re siggers page 6 counsel cousin, ranard jackson, admitted to giving perjured testimony at that the evidence was not discoverable at the time of the applicant's previous habeas for the eastern district of michigan at detroit. fuller exploration in the district court.'" in re lott, 366 f.3d 431, 433 (6th cir. 2004). for the foregoing reasons, the application is denied. arnold would have testified that on the night of the murder toby red came to fuqua's arguably have resulted in brady prejudice. see mcdonald, 514 f.3d at 545 ("one way establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for error. siggers cites no authority for this proposition, and we find it to be contrary to the plain meaning of (a) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and the absence of their testimony from his trial violated his rights under the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth here, siggers does not argue a new rule of constitutional law but rather relies on appeal from the united states district court statutory requirements." bowling v. haeberline (in re bowling), 422 f.3d 434, 436 (6th - the newly discovered evidence grounds found in 2244(b)(2)(b). for this court to the statute. see 28 u.s.c. 2244(b)(2). the issue here because it is not necessary to the outcome. in this case, siggers's latest file name: 10a0215p.06 testimony, which would satisfy the second brady requirement. finally, given the federal filing was his 2244(b) application, which was denied in 1999. siggers's _________________ - habeas corpus with the district court. siggers's application alleges that certain newly petition, the applicant must make a prima facie showing that his application satisfies the ! richard braxton gave sworn testimony that he heard toby red siggers's trial as a result of police coercion. no. 08-1214 in re siggers page 2 _________________ 28 u.s.c. 2244(b), to file a second or successive habeas petition with the district court. siggers alleges police misconduct and coercion resulting in the introduction of perjured circuit court alleging that newly discovered evidence established his innocence and


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise