Bruno v. Coveny
| Decision Date | 09 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18-CV-1522 (AMD) |
| Parties | ANTONIO BRUNO, SR., Petitioner, v. R. COVENY, Superintendent, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
The pro se petitioner, currently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.20(1)) and sentenced as a predicate violent felon to a determinate prison term of 22 years followed by five years of post-release supervision. The petitioner argues that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence, and that the trial court violated due process and his right to a fair trial when it permitted evidence of uncharged crimes and allowed the prosecutor to introduce the petitioner's post-arrest statements as "rebuttal evidence." (ECF No. 1 at 11, 50, 64.) In addition, the petitioner faults the trial court's final instructions to the jury, and argues that his sentence was "excessive," that his manslaughter conviction violates double jeopardy, and that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. (ECF No. 1 at 70, 79, 84-86.) For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied.
On November 12, 2007, the petitioner stabbed William Rosario in the chest with a knife and killed him. A grand jury charged him with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The petitioner went to trial before the Honorable Danny K. Chun and a jury on September 17, 2008. The jury acquitted the petitioner of second degree murder and convicted him of first degree manslaughter.
Prior to trial, Judge Chun held a hearing on the petitioner's motion to suppress his post-arrest statements. (ECF No. 7-1.)2
Officer Julia Beskin rode with the petitioner in an ambulance to Methodist Hospital. (ECF No. 7-1 at 80.) The petitioner was "screaming and cursing," and called her a "bitch" and a "pig." (Id.) Once in the emergency room he continued to scream "non-stop." (Id. at 81.) He (Id.) When a medical provider asked Officer Beskin if the petitioner was involved in the stabbing, the petitioner "wanted to know which one of the two males that he was involved with in a fight was stabbed and whether it was the younger or the older brother." (Id. at 82-83.) He told Officer Beskin that (Id. at 83.)
The petitioner was taken to the 78th precinct and placed in an interview room. (ECF No. 7-1 at 28.) As Detective Thomas Markardt began to advise him of his rights, the petitioner interrupted, saying that:
[H]e knew his rights and that he was walking down the street and five drunken Mexicans assaulted him and he's a man and he did what he had to do. He was placed in a choke hold, struck over the head with a bottle and when he woke up there was someone [l]ying next to him. He was handcuffed. The police were on the scene. He was taken to Methodist Hospital. He didn't understand why he was being treated like a criminal and that he didn't have anything else to say until [he] spoke with his attorney.
(Id. at 31-32.) At that point Detective Markardt ended the interview and took the petitioner to a holding cell. (Id. at 33.) A short time later, Detective Markardt overheard the petitioner tell Police Officer Julio Franco, whose desk was near the holding cell, that he could "go four years standing on his head," and he could "do push-ups . . . all day long." (Id. at 34.) Detective Markardt observed that the petitioner was "very angry," and was "screaming" and "yelling." (Id.)
Judge Chun denied the motion to suppress. (ECF No. 7-1 at 105, 107, 121.) He determined that there was probable cause to arrest the petitioner, and that all his statements were "spontaneous" and "voluntary." (Id. at 106-07.)
The prosecution made an application pursuant to People v. Molineaux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901), to introduce evidence of the petitioner's prior uncharged crimes and bad acts. The prosecutor asked to introduce evidence that the petitioner was a member of the Cash Money Boys gang, a subset of the Bloods, that he was a known drug dealer and that Jonathan Burgos and Alex Santiago sold drugs for him, and that the petitioner held a knife to a teenager's throat and threatened him a week before the stabbing. (Id. at 46-48.) She also sought permission tointroduce evidence that nine years before the stabbing the petitioner beat a much larger man into unconsciousness. (Id. at 48.) She explained that this evidence was probative of the petitioner's motive and relevant to establish that the petitioner was the "big homie" who "runs the block." (Id. at 43, 48.) Evidence of these acts would also "complete the narrative" by establishing the relationship between the petitioner and the witnesses. (Id. at 49.) Defense counsel opposed the application, and argued that there was no evidence that the killing was gang related or connected to narcotics, and that the evidence was being offered merely to demonstrate the petitioner's propensity for violence. (Id. at 56-59.)
Judge Chun denied the applications to introduce evidence of the beating and evidence of the petitioner's membership in the Bloods. He permitted the evidence that the petitioner was known to be a member of the Cash Money Boys, and that he sold drugs with Burgos and Santiago. (Id. at 66-67.) He also granted the application to introduce evidence of the knifepoint threat a week before the stabbing. (Id. at 67.) Judge Chun explained that the evidence of the petitioner's gang membership, his relationship to Burgos and Santiago, and his threat to the teenager "completed the narrative" and explained the relationships among the various people; the evidence showed that the petitioner was the "big homie or the person who runs the block" and that he was called to provide "protection" or "punish[ment]" if someone was "messing with his under[lings]." (Id. at 68.)
In its application pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371 (1974), the prosecution sought to cross-examine the petitioner about the following aspects of his criminal record if he elected to testify: a 1995 youthful offender adjudication for selling drugs to an undercover officer, a 2001 conviction for possession of a loaded firearm, a 2001 conviction for second degree assault during a robbery in which the victim was stabbed and beaten with a baseball bat,and convictions in 2003 and 2004 for selling drugs. (Id. at 59-62.) The prosecutor also sought to question the petitioner about disciplinary infractions at Rikers Island. (Id. at 63.) Defense counsel responded that none of the petitioner's prior convictions were probative of credibility and would be unduly prejudicial. (Id. at 64-66.)
Judge Chun ruled that if the petitioner chose to testify, the prosecutor could ask: whether he had been convicted of a felony in January of 2001, and whether he was in possession of a loaded firearm in that case; whether he was convicted of another felony in June of 2001, but not about the underlying facts; and whether he had a felony drug conviction in 2004 as well as the underlying facts of that case. (Id. at 71-72.) In addition, Judge Chun permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the petitioner about the beating from nine years earlier. (Id. at 73.) Judge Chun precluded inquiry into the petitioner's 2003 conviction, the youthful offender adjudication, and the prison infractions. (Id.)
The prosecution called 31 witnesses at trial and established the following facts:
On the evening of November 12, 2007, William Rosario took his fiancé and two daughters bowling at Melody Lanes in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. (Tr. at 140, 253, 729.)3 Rosario's cousins—22 year-old Javier Aquino and 15 year-old Valerie Aquino—were there, as was Rosario's brother Dario Algarin. (Id. at 140, 253, 452, 729.) The group bowled for a few hours and then walked up 5th Avenue towards the Aquinos' apartment on 12th Street in Park Slope. (Id. at 142, 250, 254, 454, 731.) As they approached 14th Street and 5th Avenue, Jonathan Burgos, a teenage friend of Javier Aquino's, rode up on a bike. (Id. at 260, 456, 731.) Javiernodded at him, but Rosario, who did not live in Park Slope and did not know Burgos, exchanged "looks" with the teen, and the two argued briefly. (Id. at 260, 456, 732.) Burgos said, and rode away. (Id. at 732-33.) Rosario, Algarin and the Aquinos went into a deli on 13th Street and 5th Avenue to buy some beer, while Rosario's fiancé and daughters went home in a cab. (Id. at 146, 257, 262, 734.)
While they were inside the store, Rosario, Algarin and Javier Aquino argued with Burgos's older brother, Tommy. (Id. at 263, 458, 735.) As they left the deli, a group of teenage boys, including Burgos, confronted them. (Id. at 263, 459, 736.) One of the boys—Alex Santiago—had an aluminum baseball bat and was swinging it as if he was going to hit somebody. (Id. at 264-66, 460, 736.) Javier asked Santiago if there was anything he could do to "squash this," and Santiago replied, (Id. at 736.) Rosario and Javier stepped toward Santiago, and Algarin threw a beer bottle at Santiago but did not hit him. (Id. at 461, 736.) The teens ran away, and Santiago called out, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial