Ariza v. Lee
| Decision Date | 05 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-CV-359,13-CV-359 |
| Parties | EDWARDO ARIZA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM A. LEE, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
For Petitioner:
For Respondent:
A. Crime of Conviction and Trial...............................................................................3
D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel........................................................................11
E. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel........................................................................19
Petitioner, Edwardo Ariza, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following a state jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of gang assault in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and one count of assault in the second degree. He was sentenced to fourteen years in prison.
Petitioner argues that: (1) the trial court inadequately responded to a jury question; (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was repugnant; (3) the sentence was excessive; (4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and (5) counsel was ineffective.
The petition is denied.
A. Crime of Conviction and Trial
In October 2001, petitioner and several accomplices encountered another group of young men in the street and attacked them, possibly as a form of "initiation." Trial Tr. 36-37, 85. The victims were severely beaten and a gold chain was taken. Id. at 38-39. They were treated at a local hospital for potentially fatal wounds. Id. at 103. Shortly after the fight, a co-defendant and two co-perpetrators were stopped near the scene of the attack because they matched the given descriptions and had blood on their clothing. Id at 334, 380-81. A handgun and a bloody knife were recovered from an accomplice. Id. at 334. Petitioner was apprehended and arrested at his home later that day. Id. at 652-55.
At trial, petitioner was represented by Carmen Velasquez, Esq. Id. at 2. Petitioner was the last witness called to testify by defense counsel. Id. at 629. He was under oath and answered questions on direct and cross examination about his alibi. Id. at 629, 629-56. He claimed he was at home with his family, asleep. Id. at 632, 642.
At sentencing, with new counsel, petitioner admitted that he had lied about his whereabouts on the night of the attack. Tr. of Sentencing Hr'g 12, Dec. 22, 2004.
The sentence consisted of a prison term of seven years for the first gang assault count, a concurrent prison term of five years for a single count of robbery, a concurrent prison term of two years for a single count of assault, and a consecutive prison term of seven years for the other gang assault count. Id. at 14-15. Five years of supervised release was imposed. Id.
B. Direct Appeal
An appeal was taken to the Appellate Division, Second Department. See Br. for Def.-Appellant, Oct. 22, 2009. Claimed was that the trial court did not adequately respond to a jury question, that the jury verdict was repugnant, and that the sentence was excessive. See id. at 27, 31, 36.
Petitioner's supplemental pro se brief argued prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. See Supplemental Br. for Defendant-Appellant 23-39, Feb. 26, 2010.
The Appellate Division affirmed. People v. Ariza, 77 A.D.3d 844, 909 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dep't 2010). It found that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, id. at 845, 909 N.Y.S.2d at 149; contentions regarding jury instructions, prosecutorial misconduct, and the repugnancy of the verdict were unpreserved and without merit. Id. at 845-46, 909 N.Y.S.2d at 149-50. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim, to the extent it could be reviewed based on the record, was found to be meritless, id. at 846, 909 N.Y.S.2d at 150; petitioner's sentence was not excessive, id.; and the "remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, [were] unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, [were] without merit." Id.
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on all the claims raised was denied. People v. Ariza, 15 N.Y.3d 951, 917 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2010).
C. C.P.L. § 440 Motions
A motion to vacate the conviction was filed pro se in January 2012, on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. See Aff. in Support of Mot. to Vacate J. ¶¶ 5-17, 18-20. It was denied.
Petitioner, again pro se, submitted a motion to reargue his prior motion to vacate on the same grounds. See Aff. in Support of Mot. for Reargument. It was denied. See Decision and Order (Sup. Ct. Kings County Nov. 30, 2012). The court held that the relief sought by petitioner was "procedurally barred, lack[ed] merit, and ha[d] been fully and fairly reviewed." Id.
D. Instant Petition
After exhausting his state court remedies, petitioner timely filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Petition, Jan. 16, 2013, CM/ECF No. 1. He asserts that (1) the trial court inadequately responded to a jury question; (2) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was repugnant; (3) the sentence was excessive and grossly disproportionate to that of his co-defendant; (4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; and (5) counsel was ineffective.
A non-evidentiary hearing was held on October 24, 2013. Petitioner participated from prison via telephone. See Goldberg v. Tracy, 247 F.R.D. 360, 392 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (); Harrison v. Sentowski, 247 F.R.D. 402, 414-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (). Petitioner's presence at the hearing was not necessary since issues of law only were being discussed. See, e.g., Oyague v. Artuz, No. 98-CV-6372, 2008 WL 5395748, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2008) (emphasis added); see also Tyler v. U.S., No. 09-CV-1642, 2010 WL 276183 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2010) (). The courtroom was cleared three times during the hearing so petitioner and his attorney could discuss petitioner's views. No new evidence was presented. No testimony was taken. The decision turned on an evaluation of documents in the record.
A. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
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. See, e.g., Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 313 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing, e.g., 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 that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial