Antoine v. Ercole
Decision Date | 29 August 2013 |
Docket Number | 11-CV-00088 (PKC) |
Parties | TED ANTOINE, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT ERCOLE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Ted Antoine's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2003, Antoine pled guilty to one count of second-degree murder. Although Antoine's pro se petition is somewhat unclear with respect to the grounds upon which he seeks relief, the Court construes Antoine's petition to set forth three grounds for relief: (1) Antoine's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by misleading and coercive statements made by the trial court; (2) Antoine's counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty; and (3) Antoine's motion pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 to vacate his conviction (the "440 Motion") was improperly denied without a hearing. (Dkt. 1 at ECF 5-6 & accompanying exhibits.)2 For the reasons stated below, Antoine's application is denied in its entirety.
On the evening of October 3, 2002, 17-year-old Antoine punctured the tires of his mother's former boyfriend's car, which was parked outside the ex-boyfriend's house. Antoine wanted to prevent the ex-boyfriend, Ronald Guerrier, from leaving his house in the morning. (Dkt. 1 at ECF 5.)3 When Guerrier emerged from his house the next morning, Antoine approached Guerrier with a gun and shot him once in the back in front of two eyewitnesses, including Guerrier's young son. (Dkt. 3-2 at ECF 6, 67.) Guerrier died as a result of the gunshot wound. (Dkt. 3 at 2.) Following his arrest, Antoine confessed to killing Guerrier in both a written statement and a videotaped confession. (Dkt. 3 at ECF 10.) Antoine explained in his written statement that he did it "because of all the anger I had for [Guerrier] over the years from all the abuse[.]"4 (Dkt. 3-3 at ECF 25.) In his statement, Antoine set forth a history of abuse at the hands of Guerrier after Antoine's mother died and Antoine and his brother were left in Guerrier's care. (Dkt. 3-2 at ECF 28-30.) Antoine also explained in his written statement that the abuse had ceased when he turned 13, four years before the shooting. (Dkt. 3-2 at ECF 29.)
Antoine was charged with two counts of Murder in the Second Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25[1], [2]) and other related charges. (Dkt. 3 at 2.)
On October 16, 2003, the trial court conducted a lengthy suppression hearing regarding the admissibility of Antoine's post-arrest statements. The next day, on October 17, the trial courtdenied Antoine's suppression motion, finding that "the statement was clearly voluntarily given[.]" The court ruled that the confessions would be admissible at trial. (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 52.) After ruling on the suppression motion, the trial court began discussing with Antoine the possibility of a guilty plea:5
(Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 52-55) (emphases added).6 The judge reminded Antoine that his videotaped confession would be admitted at trial and that it would be "difficult to prove to the jury, toestablish to the jury's satisfaction that that statement wasn't you or you were lying when you made the statement." (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 55.)
The judge then turned to discussing how the trial would proceed. She asked defense counsel whether Antoine intended to exercise his right to be present during sidebar discussions between potential jurors and the judge during jury selection. (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 55-56.) In the midst of this discussion, Antoine interrupted the judge to request a conference with counsel, which the court permitted. (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 56.) Following the conference, Antoine's counsel asked to speak with the judge. (Dkt 3-4 at ECF 56.) Immediately after the court's conference with Antoine's counsel, the court again admonished Antoine:
(Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 56-58) (emphases added).
The court confirmed that Antoine indeed wanted to admit that he committed the crime (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 59), then advised Antoine of his rights. (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 59-63.) The court established that Antoine was voluntarily waiving his right to a trial and that no one had threatened or influenced him to give up that right (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 61), that he had been advised by his attorney, understood that the court would give him a fair trial should he choose to proceed to trial, and that the jury would have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. (Dkt. 3-4 at ECF 60.)
Antoine then allocuted as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial