UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ALFORD WINGFIELD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:06-cv-130

Hon. Gordon J. Quist

LINDA METRISH

Respondent

Written Statement of Appeal

Now comes the Petitioner, James Alford Wingfield, by and through his attorney, Victor
L. Bland, and pursuant to W.D. Mich LCiv R 72.39(b) states for his appeal as follows:

Issue One: Was Petitioner denied a jury of his peers.

1) Petitioner would object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding on page 7 of his

opinion which states as follows:

“The state court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme
Court; nor was the decision based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. Sec 2254. Accordingly,
petitioner is not entitled to relief on this claim.”
 2) The Magistrate Judge found that the Petitioner had satisfied the first prong set
forth in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S. Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed. 2d 579
(1979).

3) However, Petitioner believes he has carried his burden as to the second prongs
of Duren, supra..

4) There were no African-American jurors in Petitioner’s pool.

5) It can be presumed that percentage of African Americans in Calhoun County,

Michigan is not zero.

6) That, accordingly, there was systematic exclusion of potential African

American jurors from Petitioner’s jury pool.

Issue Two: Is Petitioner entitled to resentencing where the imposed sentence was
violative of the rule of proportionality?

1) Petitioner makes no objections as to the Magistrate Judge’s findings as to this

issue.

Issue Three: Is petitioner entitled to a new trial where he was denied effective assistance
of counsel at trial?

1) The Magistrate Judge’s decision on page 13 states as follows:

“Based on this record, there is no basis to find that counsel was deficient solely
because he was unable to secure a private investigator prior to the June 9, 2003
motion hearing”

2) Counsel was granted funds for an investigator on May 20, 2003.

3) A motion to adjourn the trial was heard on June 9, 2003.

4) The trial was set to commence on June 17, 2003, eight days later.

5) The Trial Court denied the motion to adjourn.

6) Counsel still had not secured the services of an investigator some eight days
before trial.

7) The investigator may have been able to find other witnesses or may have been
otherwise able to aid counsel in preparation of materials to cross examine the
prosecution witnesses.
 8) In any event, whatever assistance the investigator could have provided can
never be ascertained since at least three weeks of work time was forever lost.

9) Counsel was ineffective because of this lost time, and the petition should be
granted as a result.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Victor L. Bland
Attorney for Petitioner