Vega v. Walsh

Decision Date17 February 2012
Docket NumberDocket No. 10–2540–pr.
Citation669 F.3d 123
PartiesHenry VEGA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. James WALSH, Superintendent, Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

669 F.3d 123

Henry VEGA, Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
James WALSH, Superintendent, Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent–Appellee.

Docket No. 10–2540–pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 18, 2011.Decided: Feb. 17, 2012.


[669 F.3d 124]

Martin Michael Lucente, Legal Aid Society, New York, New York, for Petitioner–Appellant.

William H. Branigan, Assistant District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Assistant District Attorney, on the brief), for Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Queens County, Kew Gardens, New York, for Respondents–Appellees.

[669 F.3d 125]

Before: KEARSE, LEVAL, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner-appellant Henry Vega, convicted of, inter alia, murder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in 2002, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Vega alleged that his rights were violated by the trial court's admission of (1) evidence of uncharged crimes and a tattoo featuring the word “Enforcer” and (2) the testimony of a medical examiner about an autopsy she had not performed. The district court rejected both claims. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On November 5, 1996, a police officer discovered the body of Thomas Hill in a baseball field in Kissena Park in Queens. He had been shot to death, and had bullet wounds in the chest, back, and head.

Vega and a co-defendant were arrested for Hill's murder. They were tried separately in New York State Supreme Court, Queens County. Vega was tried twice in early 2002. His first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict. The second trial resulted in Vega's conviction for murder and weapons possession.

At both trials, the Government presented evidence that Vega had solicited a murder-for-hire, owned guns, and dealt drugs, and had a tattoo featuring the word “Enforcer” on his abdomen. In addition, the Court permitted a medical examiner, Dr. Kari Reiber, to testify as an expert about the results of Hill's autopsy, which had been performed by another doctor in her office. The autopsy report itself was not admitted into evidence. Reiber testified that the prosecution's theory of Hill's death—that Vega shot Hill, who was intoxicated from alcohol and cocaine, first in the chest and then twice more in the head once Hill was on the ground—was consistent with the autopsy results.

On February 7, 2002, the jury found Vega guilty on all three charges—one count of second-degree murder and two counts of possession of weapons. On March 6, 2002, the trial court (Randall T. Eng, J.) sentenced Vega principally to twenty-five years to life in prison.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed his conviction on November 28, 2005, People v. Vega, 23 A.D.3d 680, 805 N.Y.S.2d 642 (2d Dep't 2005), and the New York State Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, People v. Vega, 6 N.Y.3d 782, 811 N.Y.S.2d 349, 844 N.E.2d 804 (2006).

On December 6, 2006, Vega filed his petition below for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Vega v. Walsh, No. 06–cv–6492 (ARR)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2006), ECF No. 1. Vega argued that the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and Vega's “Enforcer” tattoo deprived him of a fair trial and that the admission of Reiber's testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers.1 See Vega v. Walsh, No. 06–cv–6492 (ARR)(JO), 2010 WL 1685819, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2010). A magistrate judge (James Orenstein, M.J.) recommended denying Vega's petition in its entirety. Id. at *21. The district court (Allyne R. Ross, J.) adopted the recommendation and denied Vega's petition.

[669 F.3d 126]

Vega v. Walsh, No. 06–cv–6492 (ARR)(JO), 2010 WL 2265043, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 2010).

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

A federal court may grant habeas relief under § 2254 if the state court's adjudication of a claim on the merits “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A federal court may reverse a state court ruling only where it was “so lacking in justification that there was ... [no] possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786–87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011); see also Cavazos v. Smith, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2, 7–8, 181 L.Ed.2d 311 (2011) (per curiam) (citing Supreme Court jurisprudence “highlighting the necessity of deference to state courts in § 2254(d) habeas cases”).

We review the district court's denial of a § 2254 petition de novo. Harris v. Kuhlmann, 346 F.3d 330, 342 (2d Cir.2003). We conclude that the state court's rulings here were not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

First, Vega's arguments regarding the trial court's admission of evidence of Vega's uncharged crimes and “Enforcer” tattoo are without merit. In admitting the contested evidence, the trial court reasonably applied New York law in a manner that was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of United States law or the Constitution. Indeed, state trial court evidentiary rulings generally are not a basis for habeas relief. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). See generally Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • Wright v. Griffin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 1, 2017
    ...court ruling only where it was 'so lacking in justification that there was no possibility for fairminded disagreement.'" Vega v. Walsh, 669 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2012) (alterations omitted) (quoting Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103). "'If this standard is difficult to meet'-and it is-'that is b......
  • Carmichael v. Chappius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 21, 2016
    ...habeas courts to overturn state court decisions "when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong"); Vega v. Walsh , 669 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2012) (same).When a federal court reviews a state court's factual determinations, those decisions "shall be presumed to be correct," a......
  • Dhaity v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 20, 2014
    ...” Samuel v. La Valley, No. 13–723–pr, 551 Fed.Appx. 614, 616, 2014 WL 114135, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (quoting Vega v. Walsh, 669 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir.2012)) (citation and internal quotations omitted). See also Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338–39, 126 S.Ct. 969, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (20......
  • Bryson v. Sheahan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • October 1, 2013
    ...276 (2010), "includ[ing] erroneous evidentiary rulings." Hawkins v. Costello, 460 F.3d 238, 244 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Vega v. Walsh, 669 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2012) ("[S]tate trial court evidentiary rulings generally are not a basis for habeas relief") Challenges to the admissibility of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Confrontation Clause and Forensic Autopsy Reports - A 'Testimonial
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-1, October 2013
    • October 1, 2013
    ...report will constitute courtroom evidence. 205 191. Id. ; Feliz , 467 F.3d at 235–36. 192. Burden , 600 F.3d at 225. 193. Vega v. Walsh, 669 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir. 2012). 194. People v. Vega, 805 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). 195. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 196. Melen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT