Opinion
02-CV-6118, 03-MISC-0066
October 15, 2003
MEMORANDUM, JUDGMENT ORDER
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. No hearing on this matter is necessary. This memorandum briefly addresses petitioner's claims.
I. Facts and Procedural History
This petition was filed on November 15, 2002, Petitioner (sometimes referred to as defendant) claims:
a) He was denied effective assistance of counsel from counsel's failure to (1) prepare defendant to testify at trial; (2) seek a plea bargain with the promise of a lesser sentence; and (3) submit to the sentencing court the mitigation material that had been compiled by the New York Capital Defender Office and considered by the District Attorney's Office in deciding whether to seek the death penalty.
b) The People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the assailant, and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence;
c) The prosecutor's summation violated defendant's right to a fair trial;
d) The trial court's interested-witness charge denied defendant his due process right to a fair trial; and
e) The imposition of life without parole was excessive in light of defendant's history.
The evidence supports the following statement:
On March 19, 1996, at around 9:20 p.m. defendant and codefendant Christopher Brown entered La Puebla Grocery. Brandishing a.380-caliber pistol, defendant ordered Alphonso Martinez to empty the cash register and demanded additional money from Eduardo Martinez, Eduardo Martinez had none; defendant shot and killed him, Three witnesses to the robbery and murder knew defendant and identified him in a lineup. In addition, defendant admitted to committing the crime to friends. After his arrest, defendant told a police officer that he did it, that he knew where the gun was, and that he had no remorse. The gun was recovered from the sewer where defendant's cousin had hidden it. Ballistics evidence established that it was the gun that was used to kill Eduardo Martinez.
For these acts, defendant was charged, under Kings County Indictment Number 3633/96, with twelve counts of murder in the first degree (N, Y. Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(vii)), three counts of murder in the second degree (N.Y, Penal Law § 125.25(1), (2), (3)) three counts of robbery in the first degree (N.Y, Penal Law 160.15(1), (2), (4)), nine counts of attempted robbery in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.00/160 15(1), (2), (4)), one count of robbery in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 160.10(1)), three counts of attempted robbery in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110, 00/160.10(1)), one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 265, 03), and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 265, 02(4)).
On January 30, 1997, defendant was convicted, after a jury trial of first degree murder and first-degree robbery.
On February 24, 1997, the trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole for the murder conviction and to a concurrent term of twelve and one-half to twenty-five years for the robbery conviction.
By papers filed on or about February 4, 2000, defendant moved, with the assistance of counsel, to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 440 (hereinafter "C.P.L, § 440 motion"), on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant claimed that trial counsel (1) failed to prepare defendant to testify at trial, (2) failed to seek a plea bargain with the promise of a lesser sentence, and (3) failed to submit to the sentencing court the mitigation material that had been compiled by the New York Capital Defender Office and considered by the District Attorney's Office in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. In a memorandum decision and order dated March 27, 2000, the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, summarily denied defendant's CP.L. § 440 motion. The court concluded that (1) the record of defendant's trial testimony rebutted defendant's claim that trial counsel failed to properly prepare defendant; (2) nothing in the record indicated that any reasonable probability existed that, if defense counsel had sought to negotiate a plea for a lesser sentence, the prosecutor or the trial court would have had any interest in reaching such an agreement; and (3) nothing in the Capital Defendant's Office reports would have changed the sentence imposed on defendant. People v. Johnson, Indictment No, 3633/96 (Sup.Ct. Kings County Mar, 27, 2000).
By application on or about May 4, 2000, defendant sought leave from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department (hereinafter the "Appellate Division") to appeal the denial of his C.P.L. § 440 motion. By Decision and Order dated May 23, 2000, a justice of the Appellate Division denied defendant's application. People v. Johnson No-2000-04076 (2d Dep't May 23, 2000).
On or about December 21, 2000, defendant, with die assistance of counsel, perfected the appeal of his judgment of conviction by filing a brief to the Appellate Division, In his brief on appeal, defendant raised the following claims:
a) The People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the assailant, and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
b) The prosecutor's summation violated defendant's right to a fair trial;
c) The trial court's interested-witness charge denied defendant his due process right to a fair trial; and
d) The imposition of life without parole was excessive in light of defendant's history,
By memorandum decision and order dated June 4, 2001, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed defendant's judgment of conviction. People v. Johnson, 284 A.D.2d 344, 725 N.Y.S.2d 526 (2d Dep't 2001). The Appellate Division concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court concluded that defendant's jury charge claim was unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, the charge adequately conveyed the standards for evaluating witness testimony. It found that the sentence was not excessive. It concluded that there was no merit to defendant's claim that the prosecutor's summation denied him his right to a fair trial. Johnson, 284 A.D.2d at 344, 721 N.Y.S.2d at 576-77.
By letter dated July 18, 2001, defendant, with the assistance of counsel, applied to the New York Court of Appeals for permission to appeal from the decision of the Appellate Division, On November 20, 2001, the Court of Appeals denied defendant's request for leave to appeal. People v. Johnson, 97 N.Y.2d 656, 737 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2001).
II. AEDPA
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner on a claim that was "adjudicated on the merits" in state court only if it concludes that the adjudication of the claim "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, " 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
An "adjudication on the merits" is a "substantive, rather than a procedural, resolution of a federal claim," Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 313 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir. 1999)). Under the "contrary to" clause, "a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to mat reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts, " Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000) (O'Connor, J., concurring and writing for the majority in this part). Under the "unreasonable application" clause, "a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case." Id. at 413. Under this standard, "a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable, " Id. at 411. In order to grant the writ there must be "some increment of incorrectness beyond error, " although "the increment need not be great; otherwise, habeas relief would be limited to state court decisions so far-off the mark as to suggest judicial incompetence, " Francis S, v. Stone, 221 F.3d 100, 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"[F]ederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, may as much be a generalized standard that must be followed, as a bright-line rule designed to effectuate such a standard in a particular context, " Overton v. Newton, 295 F.3 d 270, 278 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Yung v. Walker, No, 01-2299, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 28137 (2d Cir. Aug. 1, 2003) (amended opinion) (district court's habeas decision that relied on precedent from the Court of Appeals is remanded for reconsideration in light of the more general teachings" of Supreme Court decisions). The Court of Appeals for tile Second Circuit has also indicated that habeas relief may be granted if a state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of "a reasonable extension" of Supreme Court jurisprudence, Berbary v. Torres, No. 02-2463, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16167, at *25 (2d Cir. Aug. 7, 2003). Determination of factual issues made by a state court "shall be presumed to be correct," and the applicant "shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).
III. Limitations Period
Congress has set a one-year period of limitations for the filing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). This limitations period ordinarily begins to run on "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." Id., § 2244(d)(1)(A), A conviction becomes final for habeas purposes when the ninety-day period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court has expired. See McKinney v. Artuz, No. 01-2739, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6745, at *22 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Sup.Ct. R, 13.
Prisoners whose convictions became final before the effective date of AEDPA, April 24, 1996, had a grace period of one year, until April 24, 1997, to file their habeas application. See Ross v. Artuz, 150 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir. 1998),
"[T]he district court has the authority to raise a petitioner's apparent failure to comply with the AEDPA statute of limitation on its own motion." Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3 d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2000). "If the court chooses to raise sua sponte the affirmative defense of failure lo comply with the AEDPA statute of limitation, however, the court must provide the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissing on such ground," Id.
In calculating the one-year limitation period, the "time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted" 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), The "Filing of creative, unrecognized motions for leave to appeal" does not toll the statute of limitations. Adeline v. Stinson, 206 F.3d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, S (2000) ("[A]n application is ` properly filed' when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings. These usually prescribe, for example, the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee. . . . The question whether an application has been `properly filed' is quite separate from the question whether the claims contained in the application are meritorious and free of procedural bar, " (emphasis in original; footnote omitted)).
The term "pending" in the statute has been construed broadly to encompass all the time during which a state prisoner attempts, through proper use of state procedures, to exhaust state court remedies with regard to a particular post-conviction application, See Bennett v. Artuz, 199 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir. 1999), aff'd, 531 U.S. 4 (2000). "[A] state-court petition is `pending' from the time it is first filed until finally disposed of and further appellate review is unavailable under the particular state's procedures, " Bennett, 199 F.3d at 120; Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (holding that the term "pending" includes the intervals between a lower court decision and a filing in a higher court for motions for collateral review), A motion for extension of time to file an appeal does not toll AEDPA's limitations period unless an extension is actually granted. See Bertha v. Girdich, 293 F.3d 577, 579 (2d Cir. 2002).
The period of limitations set forth in AEDPA ordinarily does not violate the Suspension Clause. See Muniz v. United States, 236 F.3d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 2001) ("[T]he Suspension Clause does not always require that a first federal petition be decided on the merits and not barred procedurally" (quotation omitted)); Rodriguez v. Artuz, 990 F. Supp. 275, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (AEDPA statute of limitations is not, "at least in general," an unconstitutional suspension of the writ).
A pro se litigant is accorded "some degree of latitude" in meeting filing requirements, Brown v. Superintendent, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1936, No. 97 Civ. 3303, 199S WL 75686, at *4 (S, D.N.Y. Feb, 23, 1998), But "[it] has long been recognized that ignorance does not excuse lack of compliance with the law." Velasquez v. United States, 4 F. Supp.2d 331, 334-35 (S.D, N, Y. 1998) (holding that Bureau of Prison's failure to notify prisoners regarding AEDPA's time limitation did not warrant acceptance of untimely petition); see also Brown, 1998 WL 75686 at *4 ("self-serving statement that the litigant is ignorant of the law is not grounds for equitable tolling of a statute of limitations").
The Supreme Court held in Duncan v. Walker that "an application for federal habeas corpus review is not an `application for State post-conviction or other collateral review' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), " and that therefore the section does "not toll the limitation period during the pendency of [a petitioner's] first federal habeas petition, " 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001), Duncan reversed a case in this circuit which held to the contrary. See Walker v. Artuz, 208 F.3d 357, 361-62 (2000), Although the Supreme Court has now declared that AEDPA's one-year limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a properly filed federal habeas petition, this statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and may be tolled equitably. Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000). "Equitable tolling . . . is only appropriate in `rare and exceptional circumstances, ` To merit application of equitable tolling, the petitioner must demonstrate that he acted with `reasonable diligence' during the period he wishes to have tolled, but that despite his efforts, extraordinary circumstances `beyond his control' prevented successful filing during that time." Smaldone v. Senkowski, 273 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2001).
Although state prisoners are not entitled to counsel as of right in either New York state collateral or federal habeas corpus proceedings, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated that "an attorney's conduct, if it is sufficiently egregious, may constitute the sort of `extraordinary circumstances' that would justify the application of equitable tolling to the one-year limitations period of AEDPA, " Baldayaque v. United States, No. 02-2611, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 15063, at *17 (2d Cir. July 30, 2003); compare Smaldone, 273 F.3d at 138-39 (attorney calculation error does not justify equitable tolling).
Prisoners cannot circumvent the strict AEDPA limitations period by invoking the "relation back" doctrine by arguing that a new petition should be treated as having been filed on the same day as a first petition. As the Court of Appeals has explained,
If [the limitations period] were interpreted as Petitioner argues, the result would be Impractical. A habeas petitioner could file a non-exhausted application in federal court within the limitations period and suffer a dismissal without prejudice, He could then wait decades to exhaust his state court remedies and could also wait decades after exhausting his state remedies before returning to federal court to "continue" his federal remedy, without running afoul of the statute of limitations.Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Graham v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 762, 780 (5th Cir. 1999)).
IV. Exhaustion
In the past, a state prisoner's federal habeas petition had to be dismissed if the prisoner did not exhaust available state remedies as to any of his federal claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1989), "This exhaustion requirement is, . . . grounded in principles of comity; in a federal system, the States should have the first opportunity to address and correct alleged violations of [a] state prisoner's federal rights, " Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The exhaustion requirement requires the petitioner to have presented to the state court "both the factual and legal premises of the claim he asserts in federal court." Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc).
Pursuant to AEDPA, a district court may now, in its discretion, deny on the merits habeas petitions containing unexhausted claims — so-called "mixed petitions, " See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the state, "). In addition, the state may waive the exhaustion requirement, but a "State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement." Id. § 2254(b)(3); see also Ramos v. Keane, No, 98 CIV. 1604, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101, at * 10 (S, D.N.Y. 2000) (state's failure to raise exhaustion requirement does not waive the issue).
V. Procedural Bar
A federal habeas court may not review a state prisoner's federal claims if those claims were defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, " Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750, In determining whether a procedural bar is sufficient to preclude habeas review, a federal court must consider as "guideposts" the following:
(1) whether the alleged procedural violation was actually relied on in the trial court, and whether perfect compliance with the state rule would have changed the trial court's decision; (2) whether state caselaw indicated that compliance with the rule was demanded in the specific circumstances presented; and (3) whether petitioner had "substantially complied" with the rule given "the realities of trial, " and, therefore, whether demanding perfect compliance with the rule would serve a legitimate governmental interest.Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217, 240 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (2002)).
If a state court holding contains a plain statement that a claim is procedurally barred then the federal habeas court may not review it, even if the state court also rejected the claim on the merits in the alternative. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 264 n. 10 (1989) ("a state court need not fear reaching the merits of a federal claim in an alternative holding" so long as it explicitly invokes a state procedural rule as a separate basis for its decision).
When a state court says that a claim is "not preserved for appellate review" and then rules "in any event" on the merits, such a claim is not preserved. See Glenn v. Bartlett, 98 F.3d 721, 724-25 (2d Cir. 1996), When a state court "uses language such as `the defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit, `the validity of the claim is preserved and is subject to federal review, " Fama v. Comm'r of Corr. Svcs., 235 F.3d o v:804, 810 (2d Cir. 2000). Where "a state court's ruling docs not make clear whether a claim was rejected for procedural or substantive reasons and where the record does not otherwise preclude the possibility that the claim was denied on procedural grounds, AEDPA deference is not given, because we cannot say that the state court's decision was on the merits." Su v. Filion, No. 02-2683, 2003 U.S. App, LEXIS 13949 at *15 n. 3 (2d Cir. July 11, 2003) (citing Miranda v. Bennett, 322 F.3d 171, 178 (2d Cir. 2003)). This congeries of holdings leaves it an open question whether there are "situations in which, because of uncertainty as to what the state courts have held, no procedural bar exists and yet no AEDPA deference is required, " Id.
VI. Actual Innocence
"[A] habeas petitioner may also bypass die independent and adequate state ground bar by demonstrating a constitutional violation that resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, i.e., that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted." Dunham v. Travis, 313 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir. 2002).
Because habeas corpus "is, at its core, an equitable remedy, " Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995), the Supreme Court has stated that "in appropriate cases, the principles of comity and finality that inform the concepts of cause and prejudice must yield to the imperative of correcting a fundamentally unjust incarceration, " id. at 320-21 (quotations omitted). To ensure that this exception remains rare and will be applied only in the extraordinary case, the Court has "explicitly tied" the miscarriage of justice exception to the petitioner's innocence. Id. at 321, "To be credible, such a claim requires petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence, . . . that was not presented at trial. Because such evidence is obviously unavailable in the vast majority of cases, claims of actual innocence are rarely successful." Id. at 324.
A showing of actual innocence serves merely as a gateway to the airing of the petitioner's defaulted claim and is not itself cognizable in habeas as a free-standing claim. See Herrera v. Collins., 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993) ("[C]laims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding"). A habeas court is, in short, concerned "`not [with] the petitioners' innocence or guilt but solely [with] the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved.' " Id. (quoting Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88 (1923)); cf. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (habeas court may review an independent constitutional claim that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to convict a criminal defendant beyond a reasonable doubt); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960) (reversing conviction of "Shuffling Sam" on direct review from conviction in Louisville's police court where there was no evidence that defendant violated city ordinances).
VII. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that a criminal defendant" shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const, amend. VI. This right to counsel is "the right to effective assistance of counsel." McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14 (1970) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has explained that in giving meaning to this requirement we must be guided by its purpose — "to ensure a fair trial" — and that therefore the "benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). In order to prevail on a Sixth Amendment claim, a petitioner must prove both that counsel's representation "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" measured under "prevailing professional norms, " id. at 688, and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, " id. at 694. See also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. ___, No. 02-311, slip op. at 8-10 (June 26, 2003); United States v. Eyman, 313 F.3d 741, 743 (2d Cir. 2002). A "reasonable probability" is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
The performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland may be addressed in either order, and "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed." Id. at 697. In evaluating the prejudice suffered by a petitioner as a result of counsel's deficient performance, the court looks to the "cumulative weight of error" in order to determine whether the prejudice "reache[s] the constitutional threshold." Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191, 202 (2d Cir. 2001), The court must also keep in mind that "a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support." Strickland, 466 US, at 696, "The result of a [criminal] proceeding can be rendered unreliable, and hence the proceeding itself unfair, even if the errors of counsel cannot be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have determined the outcome." Purdy v. Zeldes, No. 02-7468, 2003 U.S. App, LEXIS 2053, at *1S (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2003) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). Ineffective assistance may be demonstrated where counsel performs competently in some respects but not in others. See Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir 2003).
As a general matter, strategic choices made by counsel after a thorough investigation of the facts and law are "virtually unchallengeable, " though strategic choices "made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation, " Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91. Counsel, in other words, "has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary, " Id. at 691, Where counsel fails to make a reasonable investigation that is reasonably necessary to the defense, a court must conclude that the decision not to call an expert cannot have been based on strategic considerations and will thus be subject to review under Strickland's prejudice prong. See Pavel v. Hollins, 261 F.3d 210, 223 (2d Cir. 2001) (counsel ineffective in a child sexual abuse case where his failure to call a medical expert was based on an insufficient investigation)' Lindstadt, 239 F.3d at 201 (same). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has recently gone so far as to imply that all of counsel's significant trial decisions must be justified by a sound strategy — a significant raising of the bar that would appear to require an unrealistic degree of perfection in counsel. See Eze, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 2511, at *78-*79 (remanding to district court for factual hearing because it was "unable to assess with confidence whether strategic considerations accounted for . . . counsel's decisions").
There is "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, " Strickland, 466 U.S. at 6S9.
Each factual claim made in support of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel must be fairly presented to a state court before a federal habeas court may rule upon it. See Rodriguez v. Hoke, 928 F.2d 534, 538 (2d Cir. 1991) (dismissing petition as unexhausted where petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleged more deficiencies before the habeas court than were presented to the state court, because "[t]he state courts should have been given the opportunity to consider all the circumstances and the cumulative effect of all the claims as a whole" (quotation omitted)). Where an additional factual claim in support of the ineffective-assistance allegation merely "supplements" the ineffectiveness claim and does not "fundamentally alter" it, dismissal is not required. Caballero v. Keane, 42 F.3d 738, 741 (2d Cir. 1994). Each significant factual claim in support of an ineffective-assistance allegation premised on appellate counsel's deficient performance must be exhausted. See Word v. Lord, No-00 CIV. 5510, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19923, at *34-*35 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2002) (Magistrate's Report and Recommendation).
Although the Strickland test was formulated in the context of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the same test is used with respect to claims of ineffective appellate counsel. See Claudio v. Scully, 982 F.2d 798, 803 (2d Cir. 1992). Appellate counsel does not have a duty to advance every nonfrivolous argument that could be made, see Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 754 (1983), but a petitioner may establish that appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective "if he shows that counsel omitted significant and obvious issues while pursuing issues that were clearly and significantly weaker, " Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528, 533 (2d Cir. 1994), Either a federal or a state law claim that was improperly omitted from an appeal may form the basis for an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, "so long as the failure to raise the state. claim fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance." Id. (quotations omitted),
VIII. Errors of State Law
Federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for mere errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991). Nonetheless, the Due Process Clause requires that state courts conducting criminal trials "proceed consistently with `that fundamental fairness' which is `essential to the very concept of justice,'" Dunnigan v. Keane, 137 F.3d 117, 125 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941)). Errors of state law that rise to the level of a constitutional violation may be corrected by a habeas court, but even an error of constitutional dimensions will merit habeas corpus relief only if it had a "`substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.'" Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (quotation omitted).
IX. Evidentiary Error
For a habeas petitioner to prevail on a claim that an evidentiary error amounted to a deprivation of due process, he must show that the error was so pervasive as to have denied him a fundamentally fair trial. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976). The standard is "whether the erroneously admitted evidence, viewed objectively in light of the entire record before the jury, was sufficiently material to provide the basis for conviction or to remove a reasonable doubt that would have existed on the record without it. In short it must have been `crucial, critical, highly significant."' Collins v. Scully, 755 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 410, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1982). This test applies post-AEDPA. See Wade v. Mantello, No. 02-2359, slip op, at 13 (2d Cir. June 13, 2003),
X. Verdict Against the Weight of the Evidence
To the degree petitioner claims that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the relevant question for this court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), Petitioner "bears a very heavy burden" when challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a state criminal conviction. Einaugler v. Supreme Court, 109 F.3d 836, 840 (2d Cir. 1997). To the degree petitioner claims the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, such a claim does not present a federal constitutional issue.
XI. Legal Claims Frequently Raised in Habeas Corpus Applications
For an explication of the law concerning other claims that are frequently raised before this court in applications for a writ of habeas corpus, see Waters v. McGuiness, 99-CV-0615, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 US, Dist. LEXIS 11077, at *4-*5 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2003) (grand jury claims); Custodio v. Duncans, Nos. 99-CV-2561, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11050, at *4-*7 (E.D.N, Y. June 11, 2003) ( Batson challenges); Reyes v. Irwin, 99-CV-3758, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11045, at *5-*6 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2003) ( Wade claims); Brathwaite v. Duncan, 00-CV-0860, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist-LEXIS 11056, at *4-*5 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2003) ( Sandoval claims); Thomas v. Kuhlman, 255 F. Supp.2d 99, 108-09 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (perjured testimony); Martinez v. Greiner, 99-CV-4663, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U, S. Dist. LEXIS 11046, at *7 (E.D.N.Y, June 20, 2003) ( Fourth Amendment claims); Plunkett v. Keane, 97-CV-1992, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11048, at *8-*9 (E.D.N.Y, June 10, 2003) ( Rosario claims); Beniquez v. Bennett, 00-CV-0985, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U, S. Dist. LEXIS 11032, at * 15-* 16 (E.D.N.Y, June 16, 2003) (prosecutorial misconduct); Sevencan v. Herbert, No. 01-2491, slip op. at 6-13 (2d Cir. Aug. 7, 2003) (public trial); Cox v. Donnelly, 99-CV-8216, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 9886, at *12-*14 (E.D.N.Y, June 12 2003) (shifting burden of proof); Jelinek v. Costello, 247 F. Supp.2d 212, 266-67 (E, D.N, Y. 2003) (right to self-representation); Stewart v. Senkowski, 00-CV-0806, 03-MISC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11028, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2003) (erroneous jury instructions); Jenkins v. Artuz, 98-CV-7S37, 00-MTSC-0066 (JBW), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11049, at *7-*8 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2003) (abuse of discretion in sentencing);
XII, Harmless Error
In order to be entitled to habeas relief, a petitioner must ordinarily demonstrate that any constitutional error "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict," and that the error resulted In "actual prejudice." Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (quotation marks omitted),
When a claim was never adjudicated on the merits in the state courts and there is no ruling which commands AEDPA deference, it is unclear what the standard for review for harmlessness should be in a collateral attack when a federal court finds constitutional error. Should it proceed under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (conviction infected by constitutional error must be overturned unless "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt") or under the "substantial and injurious effect or influence" standard of Brecht (for cases on collateral review, an error is generally considered harmless if it did not have a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict")? The correct standard of review is an open question in this circuit. See Cotto v. Herbert; No, 01-2694, 2003 US, App. LEXIS 8326, at *92 (2d Cir. May 1, 2003),
XIII, Analysis of Claims
A.
In his habeas petition, defendant makes the same claims to support his contention that trial counsel was ineffective that he raised in his motion to set aside the judgment of conviction pursuant to N.Y. Crim, Proc. Law § 440, The Supreme Court rejected defendant's arguments and concluded that defendant received the fair representation to which he was entitled. Defendant has failed to establish that the state-court decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law,Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a habeas petition shall not be granted based on a claim that was "adjudicated on the merits" in a state court proceeding unless the adjudication of the claim "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." In the present case, the New York Supreme Court examined the merits of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and concluded that these claims were without merit. See People v. Johnson, Ind. No. 3633/96 (Sup.Ct. Kings County Mar, 27, 2000),
On habeas review defendant's claims should be denied unless he establishes that the state court's adjudication was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 312 (2d Cir 2001). Defendant has not done so.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating, not only that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but also that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel's alleged errors. See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1994); Keiser v. New York, 56 F.3d 16, 18 (2d Cir. 1995); Cuevas v. Henderson, 801 F.2d 586, 589 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 908 (1987). There is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable assistance, and for a defendant to prevail on his ineffective assistance claim, he must overcome the presumption that the challenged actions, under the circumstances, might be considered sound trial strategy. Cuevas v. Henderson, 801.2d at 589-90. If a defendant can satisfy those initial requirements, he or she must additionally establish that there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
Defendant fails to meet this standard. Trial court representation was adequate. He has shown no prejudice.
This claim has no merit,
B.
Petitioner claims that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant shot the victim during a bodega robbery. Defendant also claims that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. Defendant raised the identical issues in his brief on his direct appeal to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division found that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. See People v. Johnson, 284 A.D.2d 284, 725 N.Y. So.2d 576, 576-77 (2d Dep't 2001). Defendant has failed to establish that the state-court decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The weight of the evidence claim does not raise a federal issue. Both claims are entirely lacking in merit.
A habeas defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction bears "a heavy burden." United States v. Esdaille, 769 F.2d 104 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 923 (1985); see also Thomas v. Scully, 854 F. Supp. 944 (E.D.N.Y. 1994). A federal habeas court can only grant relief based on the insufficiency of the evidence of an underlying state criminal conviction when the record is "so totally devoid of evidentiary support that a due process issue is raised." Mapp v. Warden, N.Y. State Correctional Inst. For Women, 531 F.2d 1167, 1173 n. 8 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 982 (1976). The credibility of the evidence presented at trial, the weight given to conflicting evidence, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are factual matters within the province of the jury. See Mallette v. Scully, 752 F.2d 26, 31 (2d Cir. 1984), No habeas relief is available if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, " any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, " Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original), With the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal courts must give "deferential review to state court decisions on sufficiency of the evidence claims, " When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state, it is dear that a rational finder of fact could have found defendant guilty of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
This claim his no merit.
C.
Defendant claims that the prosecutor violated defendant's right to a fair trial by aggressively confronting defendant during the summation and by saying that defendant committed the crime because "that's the kind of guy he is, " Defendant made the identical assertions in his brief on his direct appeal to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division found that the contentions were without merit. See People v. Johnson, 284 A.D.2d 344, N.Y.S.2d 576, 576-77 (2d Dep't 2001), Defendant has failed to establish that the state-court decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
The propriety of a prosecutor's summation is ordinarily a matter of state law. See Daye v. Attorney Gen, Of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 194 (2d Cir. 1982), To rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation and, thereby, entitle a defendant to federal habeas relief, it "is not enough that the prosecutor's remarks were undesirable or even universally condemned," Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986). Rather, the comments must have "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process, " Id., at 181 (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo., 416 U.S. 637, 642-43 (1974)); see also Garofolo v. Coomb, 804 F.2d 201, 206 (2d Cir. 1986). A criminal conviction "is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor's comments standing alone" in an otherwise fair proceeding. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11 (1985) (prosecutor's improper remarks expressing his personal belief that defendant was guilty did not constitute reversible error).
In the present case, the Appellate Division correctly held that the prosecutor's summation comments and behavior were within the bounds of proper advocacy.
Any arguable error regarding the prosecutor's summation was harmless. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt none of the alleged errors in the prosecutor's conduct could have "had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993); see also Bentley v. Scully, 41 F.3d 818, 824 (2d Cir. 1994) (mere "reasonable possibility" of injurious effect of prosecutor's summation comments on jury's verdict is insufficient for habeas relief), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1152 (1996); Samuels v. Mann, 13 F.3d 522 (2d Cir. 1993) (harmless error found upon application of Brecht v. Abrahamson standard where evidence against defendant could be characterized as "weighty"), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 849 (1994).
This claim has no merit.
D.
Defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial by the trial court's allegedly unbalanced interested-witness charge. This claim is barred from habeas corpus review because the claim was denied on independent and adequate state procedural grounds.
Where a state court has considered a claim and found it procedurally barred from review on the merits under independent and adequate state law, the claim is procedurally barred from federal habeas corpus review as well. See Epps v. Commissioner of Correctional Servs., 13 F.3d 615, 617 (2d Cir), ("Because of comity and federalism concerns . . . federal habeas courts generally may not review a state court's denial of a state prisoner's federal constitutional claim if the state court's decision rests on a state procedural default that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the prisoner's continued custody"), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1023 (1994) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991)).
Defendant, here, failed to voice any objection to the trial court's interested-witness instructions. The Appellate Division found that, under these circumstances, defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. People v. Johnson, 284 N.Y.2d 344, 725 N.Y.S.2d 576, 577 (2d Dep't 2001), By failing to object, defendant violated New York State's contemporaneous-objection rule, which requires that a party claiming error alert the trial court to the specific claimed error at a time when the court has an opportunity to cure any defects. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.05(2); People v. Rivera, 73 N.Y.2d 941, 540 N.Y.S.2d 233 (1989); People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9 (2d Dep't 1989). The contemporaneous-objection rule provided an adequate and independent ground in state law for the Appellate Division's rejection of defendant's jury charge claim. See Velasquez v. Leonardo, 898 F.2d 7, 9 (2d cir. 1990); Washington v. Le Fevre, 637 F. Supp. 1175, 1177 n. 4 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) (defendant waived objection by failing to comply with N.Y. Crim. Proc, Law § 470.04(2)).
The fact that the Appellate Division went on to state that, "[i]n any event, " the charge was proper, did not remove the procedural bar to this Court's consideration of the merits of defendant's claim. As the Supreme Court noted in Harris v. Reed,
(AJ state court need not fear reaching the merits of a federal claim in air alternative holding. By its very definition; the adequate and independent state ground doctrine requires the federal court to honor a state holding that is a sufficient basis for the state court's judgment, even when the state court also relies on federal law.489 U.S. 255, 264 n. 10 (1985). See also Velasquez, 898 F.2d at 9; Glenn v. Bartlett, 98 F.3d 721, 724-25 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1108 (1997),
Absent a showing of cause for the procedural default and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, defendant's claim of trial court error is procedurally barred from this court's review. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991); Epps v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d at 617-18 n. 1; Velasquez v. Leonardo, 898 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990),
To establish cause for a procedural default, a defendant must show "that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, or that `some interference by officials' made compliance impracticable, " Amadeo v. Zant, 486 U.S. 214, 222 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)), Defendant has not alleged, much less established, cause attendant to his procedural default or a fundamental miscarriage of justice arising from it. Hence, he is not entitled to federal review on this ground. See Epps v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d at 617-18 n. 1.
Defendant's claim is without merit. The trial court's charge adequately instructed the jurors on the appropriate standards for evaluating witness testimony.
Even if error occurred, any arguable error was harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (error is harmless unless it had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict), Evidence of defendant's guilt at trial was overwhelming. In light of that evidence, there is no significant probability that the alleged error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict,
This claim has no merit.
E.
Defendant claims that his sentence was excessive, This claim fails to raise a federal question, The Appellate Division found that this contention was without merit. See People v. Johnson, 284 A.D.2d 344, 725 N.Y.S.2d 576, 577 (2d Dep't 2001). Defendant has failed to establish that the state-court decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive fails to present a federal question because "[m]atters relating to sentencing and service of sentence are governed by state law and, accordingly, are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding." Glucksman v. Birns, 398 F. Supp. 1343, 1352 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that "no federal constitutional issue is presented where . . . the sentence is within the range proscribed by state law." White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383-84 (2d Cir. 1992), Here, the sentence was within the range proscribed by New York law. See N.Y. Penal Law § 70.00(3)(a)(i), (5).
This claim has no merit.
XIV. Conclusion
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
No certificate of appeal ability is granted. Petitioner made no substantial showing of the possible denial of a constitutional right. He may as already indicated, seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
SO ORDERED.