ANDREW MAURICE RANDOLPH v. MATT MACAULEY, Warden - Articles

All Content

ANDREW MAURICE RANDOLPH v. MATT MACAULEY, Warden

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Oct 21, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Eve Brensike Primus, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Scott R. Shimkus, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Eve Brensike Primus, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Michael L. Mittlestat, STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Scott R. Shimkus, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): THAPAR, BUSH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Andrew Maurice Randolph was convicted of second- degree murder and weapons charges in state court and sentenced to life in prison. The case hinged largely on ammunition found in his father’s home and a firearm found in his brother’s home. Randolph’s trial counsel did not move to suppress this evidence. In state court, Randolph contended that the failure to file the suppression motion and several other alleged deficiencies rendered trial counsel ineffective. The state courts rejected his claims, and he now seeks federal habeas relief. Randolph now comes before our court asserting four bases for habeas relief. But after seeking a COA from the district court, a single judge of our court, a panel, and the en banc court Randolph comes before our court asserting four bases for habeas relief. But after seeking a COA from the district court, a single judge of our court, a panel, and the en banc court, this court granted the COA on only one of his grounds for relief. Despite this denial, he briefed all four issues anyway and asked us to expand the COA. Mindful of our limited role under AEDPA, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the petition because the state court’s factual findings were not unreasonable, and its legal conclusions were neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. We also DENY the motion to expand the COA because we, as a panel of this court, cannot and will not reconsider the decisions of the motions panel and the en banc court.

Attachments: