Clarence Borns v. Troy Crisman, Warden

Detroit, Michigan: n December 2012, a vandal broke the windows of two homes owned by Evelyn Hardwick. She called the police, who said there was nothing they could do. But Hardwick “wanted to find out exactly . . . why . . . someone [would] come and tear out [her] windows in mid winter for absolutely nothing.” R. 23-6, Pg. ID 1715. She suspected the reason had something to do with her son, James Rankin.

Rankin lived in one of his mother’s vandalized homes. At the time, he’d been having problems with the mother of his child, Carlesha Harris.1 When he discovered the broken windows, Rankin believed Harris was involved. So he drove over to a house on Hubbell Street where some of her family members lived. But he saw several vehicles and a crowd of people outside the home, so he left. Rankin then met up with his mother and his two sisters. They drove back to Hubbell Street and parked several houses down from where Harris’s family lived
and was gathered outside.

One of Harris’s uncles noticed Rankin pull up and walked down the street to where
Rankin had parked. As he approached, Hardwick asked him, “Why would you all come and tear out my home windows?” Id. at 1722. The uncle claimed that he didn’t know anything about the vandalism. But the conversation quickly escalated, and Rankin, his mother, and his sisters all exited the car. While the argument continued, another man standing outside Harris’s family’s house heard the commotion down the street and yelled, “I’m the one that broke out the window.”

R. 23-7, Pg. ID 1791.

Rankin began walking toward the man. As he did, the man drew a gun from his
sweatshirt pocket and fired it into the air. Rankin and his family members turned and ran in the opposite direction. The shooter fired again, hitting the car’s trunk and back window as Rankin tried to open the back door and take cover. In her haste to escape, Hardwick tripped over the curb. Rankin stopped to help her up and was struck in the leg by three bullets. Meanwhile, his
sisters took cover nearby and asked a neighbor to call the police. But the shooter jumped into a white car and fled the scene.
Shortly after the shooting, Rankin and his family members spoke to the police. All four
of them independently viewed photo lineups and identified Borns as the shooter. Rankin knew Borns was Harris’s uncle and had seen him while spending time with Harris’s family.
Borns was charged with two counts of assault with intent to murder, one count of
possessing a firearm as a felon, and one count of possessing a firearm while committing a felony.

He pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the defense primarily relied on testimony from Borns’s sister, Melissa.2 She
owned the Hubbell Street house near where the shooting occurred. Melissa’s trial testimony cast doubt on Borns’s identity as the shooter. She first testified that at around 5:00 a.m. on the day of the shooting, a brick crashed through her front window. She ran to the door to identify the culprit and saw Rankin walking to his van. Melissa’s brother, Carl, pursued Rankin and started
shooting at him.3 According to Melissa, when Rankin returned later with his family, Carl said, “[H]e’s back.” Id. at 1902. Melissa testified that she followed Carl as he ran outside with a gun.

She then went back inside to put shoes on and heard shots. A moment later, she saw Borns inside the house. She then returned to the front lawn and saw Carl standing by the street with a gun in his hand. In contrast, she never saw Borns with a gun.

Although no physical evidence tied Borns to the shooting, the prosecution relied on a
recorded statement and the victims’ testimony. In a phone call from prison, Borns admitted to getting caught up in a domestic-violence dispute between Harris and Rankin. Rankin’s mother and sisters identified Borns as the shooter to police after the incident and again in court. Rankin died in an unrelated incident shortly before trial, so he didn’t testify at trial. But the government
introduced transcripts from an in-court pretrial examination in which Rankin identified Borns as the shooter and testified about the incident. The jury ultimately convicted Borns of our offenses.

* * *

A state prisoner must file a habeas petition
within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

However, a state motion for postconviction relief tolls the statute of limitations while that motion is pending. Id. § 2244(d)(2). And even if a petition is untimely, AEDPA’s limitations period may be subject to equitable tolling. Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010). Borns’s state-court motion didn’t toll the statute of limitations, and he can’t show that he’s entitled to equitable tolling, so his habeas petition was filed too late.

The Defendant was found guilty.

The sought a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

The writ was conditionally granted.

Reverse.