Amin v. Hulihan
| Decision Date | 13 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | 10-CV-2293 (PKC) |
| Parties | ABRAHAM AMIN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM F. HULIHAN, Superintendent, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Abraham Amin ("Petitioner"), appearing pro se, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his February 28, 2007 conviction following a plea of guilty to one count of Manslaughter in the First Degree in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County. On March 29, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced to 12-1/2 to 25 years. Petitioner challenges his conviction on two grounds: (1) the State court improperly denied his request for a Dunaway suppression hearing, and (2) the State court failed to properly assess Petitioner's mental competence at the time of the offense and during the prosecution. For the reasons set forth below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied in its entirety.
On July 24, 1998, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Petitioner stabbed his fiancée, Dorota Wisniewska (the "victim"), over 15 times in the chest and abdomen inside the apartment theyshared. (See Dkt. 13 (Decl. of Ayelet Sela ("Sela Decl.")) ¶ 4.) At approximately 9:26 a.m., Petitioner called 911. (Id.) Petitioner told the operator: (Dkt. 14-2 at ECF 16 ("Section 710.30 Notice").2) When the police arrived at the scene, Petitioner, who was wearing a blood-soaked t-shirt and a pair of underwear, directed them to the victim. (Sela Decl. ¶ 4.) The victim was lying face down on the bathroom floor covered in blood from multiple stab wounds. (Id.) There were no signs of forced entry and no other individuals present; Petitioner offered no explanation for the injured and bleeding woman in the apartment. (Id.) The officers subsequently recovered a 12-inch kitchen knife on the bedroom floor. (Id.) The victim died at the hospital. (Id.)
The officers arrested Petitioner and removed him to the Queens General Hospital Center, where he was treated for stab wounds on his leg and ankle. (Id.) At around 11:20 a.m. at the hospital, Detective Louis Pia of the Queens Homicide Squad issued Miranda warnings to Petitioner. (Id.) After receiving the Miranda warnings, Petitioner told Detective Pia that he lived with his fiancée, Dorota; that he woke up at around 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. and immediately observed his fiancée lying in the bathroom bleeding; and that he called 911. (Section 710.30 Notice.) When asked how he was injured, the defendant stated he "really did not remember." (Id.)
On August 3, 1998, Petitioner was indicted on two counts of Second Degree Murder andone count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. (Sela Decl. ¶ 7.) On November 19, 1998, the People served notice on Petitioner, pursuant to CPL § 710.30, of his two oral statements to police: the 911 call from the morning of July 24, 1998 and his post-arrest statements to the police at the hospital. (Section 710.30 Notice.)
On May 19, 1999, Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed an omnibus motion requesting the following relief: (1) dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that the evidence before the Grand Jury was not legally sufficient or, in the alternative, for an order reducing any charge where the evidence was only sufficient to support a lesser charge; (2) release of the grand jury minutes to defense counsel; (3) appointment of an investigator; (4) a Bill of Particulars; and (5) Dunaway/Huntley and Sandoval hearings.3 (Dkt. 14 at ECF 2-3 ("Notice of Omnibus Motion").) With respect to the request for a Dunaway/Huntley hearing, Petitioner's counsel asserted that there was no probable cause at the time of Petitioner's arrest because the only information the police had when they arrested him was that Petitioner "found his fiancée lying in a bathroom, bleeding, and he phoned for an ambulance." (Dkt. 14 at ECF 10 ( ).) Petitioner's counsel further asserted that Petitioner was never given any Miranda warnings after he was arrested and that his knowledge of English was insufficient to allow for clear communication with the arresting officers. (Id.)
In an Order dated May 27, 1999, Judge Robert J. Hanophy held that there was sufficient legal evidence to sustain the indictment and denied the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 14 at ECF 30 ("Order on Omnibus Motion").) Judge Hanophy granted Petitioner's request for a Huntley hearing as to the statements made to the police in the hospital; however, he denied Petitioner's request for a Huntley hearing with respect to the 911 call and Petitioner's request for a Dunaway hearing. (Id. at ECF 31.) In so ruling, the court noted that Petitioner failed to allege that his statements to the 911 operator were involuntary so as to require a Huntley hearing, and that the request for a Dunaway hearing similarly failed "to contain sworn allegations of fact supporting, as a matter of law, the grounds alleged in accordance with C.P.L § 710.60." (Id.) Finally, Judge Hanophy granted Petitioner's request for a Sandoval hearing. (Id.)
Before any trial could be held, the Court repeatedly found Petitioner unfit to stand trial.4 (See, e.g., Dkt. 14 at ECF 33-35 (Jan. 12, 1999 Hr'g Tr.); 36-39 (Dec. 2, 1999 Hr'g Tr.); 40-51 (Mar. 7, 2001 Hr'g Tr.); 52-69 (Sept. 25, 2001 Hr'g Tr.); 74-76 (June 6, 2003 Hr'g Tr.); 77-78 (July 21, 2003 Hr'g Tr.); 83-87 (July 29, 2004 Hr'g Tr.); 88-89 (Oct. 21, 2004 Hr'g Tr.).) Between January 12, 1999 and February 28, 2007, the court held eleven competency hearings and ordered several psychiatric examinations to determine Petitioner's fitness to proceed. During that time, Petitioner was held in various mental health facilities, and was only found competent on three occasions: January 13, 2003; January 26, 2004; and August 10, 2005. (See Dkt. 14 at ECF 70-73 (Jan. 13, 2003 Hr'g Tr.); 79-82 (Jan. 26, 2004 Hr'g Tr.); Dkt. 14-2 at ECF 1 (Aug. 10, 2005 Hr'gTr.).)
On February 28, 2007, after the court found Petitioner fit to stand trial, he pled guilty on February 28, 2007 to Manslaughter in the First Degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 125.20. (Dkt. 14-2 at ECF 4-15 (Plea Hr'g Tr.).) Petitioner allocuted as follows: "I stabbed Dorota numerous times to cause harm and she died, and she died from the stabbing." (Id. at ECF 13.) Petitioner waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, both orally in court and by signing a written waiver. (Id. at ECF 14; see also Dkt. 14-3 at ECF 82 (Waiver of Right to Appeal).) On March 29, 2007, Petitioner was sentenced to 12-1/2 to 25 years. (Dkt. 14-2 at ECF 25 (Sentencing Hr'g Tr).)
On March 14, 2008, Petitioner appealed his conviction through assigned appellate counsel, raising two issues: (1) whether the trial court's summary denial of his motion for a Dunaway hearing deprived him of his constitutional right to due process and to be free from illegal searches and seizures; and (2) whether his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice, based on his lack of a criminal record and history of mental illness. (Dkt. 14-2 at ECF 27 (Brief for Appellant).) On July 29, 2008, the Appellate Division denied Petitioner's appeal, finding that he had "knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal," and holding that "[i]inasmuch as the issues he seeks to raise are encompassed within that valid waiver, we will not review them." People v. Amin, 860 N.Y.S.2d 917 (App. Div. 2008). On September 29, 2008, the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Amin, 896 N.E.2d 97 (2008).
On May 13, 2009, Petitioner moved pro se to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL § 440.10. (Dkt. 14-2 at ECF 88 ("440 Motion").) Petitioner claimed that his guilty plea wasinvoluntary because he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that "his attorney failed to advise him both of the affirmative [defense] provided in Penal Law §40.15 [] and that the ultimate decision of whether to plead guilty or assert the defense at trial belonged to him alone." (Dkt. 14-3 at ECF 89-90 (Order Denying 440 Motion).) Petitioner asserted that had he known the decision to plead guilty was his, there was "more than a 'reasonable probability'" he would have chosen to proceed to trial. (Dkt. 14-3 at ECF 2 (Aff. in Support of 440 Motion).) Petitioner also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis that his lawyer never conducted a Huntley hearing as permitted by the trial court, nor challenged its denial of a Dunaway hearing. (Id. at ECF 2-3.)
On December 22, 2009, Judge Hanophy denied Petitioner's 440 Motion. (Order Denying 440 Motion.) The judge noted as an initial matter that Petitioner's waiver of his right to appeal did not waive any claims relating to the voluntariness of his plea. (Id. at ECF 90.) However, Judge Hanophy found that Petitioner's allegations were unsupported by evidence and contradicted both by both the plea minutes and the affidavit and notes of Petitioner's trial counsel. (Id.) The court noted that at the plea hearing, both Petitioner and his trial counsel confirmed on the record that they had discussed "all the various aspects of the case," including affirmative defenses and the decision to plead guilty. (Id.) The court also noted that defense counsel's contemporaneous notes referenced discussions in which counsel informed Petitioner of the merits of available options, including an insanity defense, and that Petitioner's counsel secured for him an advantageous plea deal. (Id.) The court also noted that Petitioner had had two lawyers over the...
To continue reading
Request your trial