Baez v. Brown
| Decision Date | 29 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | 10-CV-1231(JS) |
| Parties | EDWARD BAEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM BROWN, Superintendent of Eastern New York Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner:
Edward Baez, prose
For Respondent:
Ronnie J. Lamm, Esq.
Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
Edward Baez ("Petitioner") petitions this Court pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, his Petition is DENIED.
In the early hours of July 10, 2002, Michael DiMartino was driving to his home in Selden, New York. (See Resp't's' Return, Docket Entry 6, ¶ 6; see also 6/12/03 Trial Tr. 559:9-12.1) On North Bicycle Path in Selden, a Dodge Intrepid and a van blocked DiMartino's car. (6/12/03 Trial Tr.: 561:7-562:18.) Two men, dressed as members of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"), got out of the car, approached DiMartino's car, identified themselves as NYPD officers, and told him to get out of his car. (6/12/03 Trial Tr. 563:5-564:25.) As he opened his door, Petitioner was pulled out of the car, had a hood put over his head and he was thrown into the back of the van, beaten, and tied up. (6/12/03 Trial Tr. 565:13-17; Trial Tr. 567:2-570-11.)
DiMartino was forced at gunpoint to repeatedly call his wife; he was told to tell her to place money and her jewelry in their home mailbox. (6/12/03 Trial Tr. 572:2-573:19.) At about 2:50 a.m., DiMartino's wife ("Francesca") spoke with DiMartino on the phone. DiMartino told her that he was being held at gunpoint and requested that she bring all the money outside to the front of home. (6/10/13 Trial Tr. 136:12-137:7.) After this, Francesca's father, Domenico Malvizzo ("Malvizzo"), who was also at the DiMartino's home, saw a man get out of a car and approach the house; Malvizzo went outside to meet him.(6/11/03 Trial Tr. 250:10-21.) The house alarm sounded and the man who met Malvizzo got back into the car and left (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 258:3-6.) At trial, Malvizzo identified the man with whom he spoke as Richard Garcia, a co-defendant in the underlying case. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 260:19-21.)
The police were summoned and, after they arrived, Francesca received another call asking her to put money in the mailbox. (6/10/03 Trial Tr. 144:9-25.) She then received another call from a man who said that she was stupid for calling the police and that the kidnappers were going to hurt her husband. (6/10/03 Trial Tr. 145:9-22.)
Police found DiMartino's car in a nearby schoolyard. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 317:13-14.) Looking for anyone connected to the kidnapping, Officer Francis Conway patrolled the surrounding area by car. He noticed a car driving erratically and without its lights on. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 321:5-9.) Conway followed the car and noticed that the two males inside constantly looked back at him through the rearview mirror. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 322:118-323:1.) Once additional police cars arrived, Conway pulled the suspect car over, and noticed that it was a gold Dodge Intrepid. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 327:14-328:9.) Officer Conway identified the driver as Rafael Mella-Rodriguez, a co-defendant in the underlying trial, and the passenger as Richard Garcia. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 329:24-330:5; 339:20-23.) Garciatold Conway that they dropped off a third passenger, at a Walgreen's. (See, e.g., 6/11/03 Trial Tr. 349:22-25.)
After questioning, the officers found the Mella-Rodriguez's and Garcia's stories were conflicting. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 337:18-22.) Conway then opened the trunk of the Dodge Intrepid looking for the potential kidnapping victim (who was not there). (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 353:11-25.) Conway did see an NYPD hat, NYPD t-shirt, and a shield holder. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 354:8-15.) Conway picked up the hat and shirt, which uncovered a semi-automatic handgun on the floor of the trunk and a set of car keys. (Trial Tr. 354:18-22.) The officers arrested Mella-Rodridguez and Garcia for possession of the handgun. (Trial Tr. 355:2-4.)
Officer Taormina, after assisting Conway in arresting Mella-Rodriguez and Garcia, returned to the area where Conway first saw the arrestees driving suspiciously. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 412:7-13.) He saw a Lincoln Town Car parked in an awkward location nearby. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 412:25-413:8.) The police also found a set of keys in the Dodge Intrepid and Officer Taormina used this set to open the trunk of the Lincoln. (6/11/03 Trial Tr. 414:7-415:11.) Petitioner's fingerprint was found on the rearview mirror and his hair was found in the car. (Resp't's Return, Docket Entry 6, ¶¶ 49-50.)
DiMartino was held in the van for approximately six-to-ten hours. (6/12/03 Trial Tr. 577:19-21.) He was then taken to a building in Brooklyn from where he was eventually able to escape despite having been bound by plastic ties. (6/12/03 Trial Tr. 591:2-593:24.) That morning, NYPD Officer Victoria Lehane went to 943 Willoughby Street in Brooklyn--where DiMartino had been held--where she saw a plastic tie on the street and assorted debris that matched items noted by DiMartino. (Resp't's Return ¶ 32.) Detective Brian McMenemy's investigation led to Petitioner. (Resp't's Return ¶ 33.) After being taken into custody, McMenemy advised Petitioner, in English and Spanish, of his Miranda rights. (Resp't's Return ¶ 34.)
Petitioner was then taken to the 83rd Precinct and he was then once again advised of his Miranda rights, in Spanish, and he wrote his answers and signature on the rights card. (Resp't's Return ¶ 35.) Petitioner then explained what happened. McMenemy took notes of Petitioner's explanation and then compiled a written statement for Petitioner. (Resp't's Return ¶ 36.) Petitioner was read the statement, in Spanish, after which he signed it. (Resp't's Return ¶ 36.) In the statement, Petitioner admitted that he agreed to help for money and when he approached the van, he saw a man tied up and bloody in the backseat. (Resp't's Return ¶ 38-39.) He admitted thathe drove the van with the man tied up in the car. (Resp't's Return ¶ 40.)
Petitioner was charged with Kidnapping in the first degree (New York Penal Law ("N.Y.P.L.") § 135.25); Kidnapping in the second degree (N.Y.P.L. § 135.20); Robbery in the first degree (N.Y.P.L. § 160.15); Criminal Use of a Firearm in the first degree (N.Y.P.L. § 265.09); two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the third degree (N.Y.P.L. § 265.02); and Criminal Impersonation in the first degree (N.Y.P.L. § 190.26). (See, e.g., 6/25/03 Trial Tr. 2032:12-2052:2.)
On September 4, 2003, at the conclusion of a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of both kidnapping charges and both criminal possession charges. At sentencing, the court dismissed the charge of kidnapping in the second degree. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of eighteen years-to-life, two-to-six years, and two-to-six years, respectively.
On May 10, 2006, Petitioner appealed the judgment. (See Appellant's Br., Docket Entry 13-1.2) Petitioner arguedthat: (i) he was denied his right to confrontation, under the Sixth Amendment, when the trial court denied his attempt during cross-examination, to demonstrate that his statements to the police were involuntary; (ii) he was denied his right to a fair trial, under the Sixth Amendment, as to lay witness testimony; (iii) the jury's determination was legally inconsistent or, alternatively, as he was denied effective assistance of counsel, under the Sixth Amendment; (iv) he was denied his right to a fair trial, under the Sixth Amendment, as to the prosecutor's summation; (v) the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction; and (vi) his sentence was harsh and excessive. (See, e.g., Appellant's Br. at 2-3.)
On February 17, 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. People v. Baez, 59 A.D.3d 635, 873 N.Y.S.2d 216 (2d Dep't 2009). The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to establish Petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 635. It found that "[Petitioner's] contention that the jury verdict was repugnant is unpreserved for appellate review[.]" Id. (internal citations omitted). The court also substantively denied the claim. Id. (internal citations omitted). The court further held "the trial court did not deny [Petitioner] the right to confront the witnesses against him by its decision to limit his cross-examination of a certain prosecution witness." Id. (citations omitted). The courtdenied Petitioner's claim that he was denied a fair trial as to the lay witness's testimony. Id. at 636 (internal citation omitted). The court also held that Petitioner's claim as to the prosecutor's summation was unpreserved and went on to deny it substantively as well. Id. (internal citations omitted). Finally, the court found that the sentence was not excessive and that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit. Id.
Petitioner applied for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, which denied the application on April 14, 2009. People v. Baez, 12 N.Y.3d 814, 908 N.E.2d 928, 881 N.Y.S.2d 21 (N.Y. 2009).
Petitioner argues that: (i) he was denied his right to confrontation, under the Sixth Amendment, when the trial court denied his attempt, during cross-examination, to demonstrate that his statements to the police were involuntary; (ii) he was denied his right to a fair trial, under the Sixth Amendment, as to lay witness testimony; (iii) he was denied effective assistance of counsel, under the Sixth Amendment; (iv) the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction; (v)he was denied his right to a fair trial, under the Sixth Amendment, as to the prosecutor's summation. (Pet., Docket Entry 1, at 3-8.)
"The writ of habeas corpus stands as...
To continue reading
Request your trial