Carmichael v. Chappius

• Decision Date: 13 September 2018
• Docket Number: 14 Civ. 10012 (KPF)(AJP)
• Parties: Brian CARMICHAEL, Petitioner, v. Paul CHAPPIUS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

340 F.Supp.3d 340

Brian CARMICHAEL, Petitioner,

v.Paul CHAPPIUS, Respondent.

14 Civ. 10012 (KPF)(AJP)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed September 13, 2018

Joseph M. Nursey, Richard M. Greenberg, Sara Gurwitch, Kathleen Ellen Mollison, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Deborah L. Morse, Gina Mignola, New York County District Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, United States District JudgeOn December 10, 2007, Petitioner Brian Carmichael was convicted in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, of three counts of second-degree sale of a controlled substance, for which he is now serving a seventeen-year sentence. On December 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in this Court (the "2014 Petition"). This Court granted the 2014 Petition. Respondent appealed this Court's Order, and on February 17, 2017, the Second Circuit vacated the Order and remanded the matter back to this Court.

On remand, Petitioner sought to advance a habeas claim consistent with the Second Circuit's decision. To that end, on April 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a supplemental memorandum in support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (the "2017 Petition"), which memorandum amplified his earlier claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, this Court denies the 2017 Petition.

BACKGROUND¹

This Court's April 21, 2016 Order provides a thorough review of the relevant facts of the case. See Carmichael v. Chappius , 182 F.Supp.3d 74, 78-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (" Carmichael II "), vacated , 848 F.3d 536 (2d Cir. 2017) (" Carmichael III "). As a result, this Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and will only discuss the procedural posture and supplemental briefing as relevant to its resolution of the pending petition.

A. The 2014 Petition

On December 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in this Court. The 2014 Petition argued that: (i) Petitioner's conviction had been obtained in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ; and (ii) as a result of the underlying Batson claim, Petitioner had received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). On July 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that this Court deny Petitioner's request for relief under both theories. Carmichael v. Chappius , No. 14 Civ. 10012 (KPF) (AJP), 2015 WL 4385765 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2015) (" Carmichael I "); see id. at *18-22 (addressing ineffectiveness arguments). Petitioner timely objected to Magistrate Judge Peck's conclusions.

On April 21, 2016, this Court respectfully declined to adopt the Report, and granted the § 2254 Petition on the basis of Petitioner's substantive Batson claim. See Carmichael II , 182 F.Supp.3d at 93. Given the resolution of Petitioner's first argument, this Court declined to address Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim as moot. See id. at 93 n.7.

B. The Second Circuit Opinion

Respondent subsequently appealed this Court's Order granting Petitioner's 2014 Petition. On February 17, 2017, after briefing and argument, the Second Circuit vacated this Court's Order and remanded the case for such further proceedings as may be appropriate and consistent with its decision. See Carmichael III , 848 F.3d 536. In sum, the Second Circuit held that this Court did not exercise proper deference when evaluating the state court's ruling under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), codified in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See id. at 548-49.

AEDPA, the Second Circuit emphasized, establishes a highly deferential standard of review, a standard that prohibits a federal court from granting a writ of habeas corpus simply because the state court applied federal law incorrectly or erroneously. See Carmichael III , 848 F.3d at 548-49. Instead, the federal court must find that the state court applied federal law unreasonably. See id. Because the state court's ruling on Petitioner's Batson claim was not, in its estimation, "beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement," and therefore was not objectively unreasonable, the Second Circuit reversed this Court's grant of habeas corpus. Id. (quoting Harrington v. Richter , 562 U.S. 86, 103, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) ). Similar to this Court, the Second Circuit did not reach Petitioner's second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland .

C. The 2017 Petition

On April 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a supplemental petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in this Court. (See Pet. Br.). Petitioner renewed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim from the 2014 Petition that this Court previously, upon resolution of the substantive Batson claim, had declined to address. However, the two claims are interrelated, inasmuch as Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel relies on the underlying Batson issue. In relevant part, Petitioner argues that his trial attorney was unaware of New York law that requires attorneys to cite "other facts or circumstances," in addition to numerical evidence, to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. (Id. at 4 (quoting People v. Brown , 97 N.Y.2d 500, 507, 743 N.Y.S.2d 374, 769 N.E.2d 1266 (2002) ) ). At trial, Petitioner's counsel raised several Batson objections on the basis of the prosecution striking black venirepersons at a disproportionate rate. (See id. at 2). However, counsel failed to supplement his objections with "other facts or circumstances" to show an inference of discrimination, as Petitioner claims was required by New York law and requested by the court. (See id. at 2-3).

Petitioner argues that both prongs of the two-step test established in Strickland are met: (i) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (ii) Petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. (See Pet. Br. 2-18). Specifically, Petitioner claims that counsel's inadequate challenge to a Batson violation under New York law meets Strickland 's first prong of defective performance. (See id. at 4-17). Next, Petitioner alleges that Batson errors are structural errors, rendering a proceeding fundamentally unfair. (See id. at 7-18). As a result, he asserts, prejudice is presumed and the second prong of Strickland is satisfied. (See id. ).

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

1. Reviewing the Report and Recommendations of a Magistrate Judge

In renewing his ineffectiveness claims, Petitioner has returned the Court's attention to that portion of Magistrate Judge Peck's Report that it, and the Second Circuit, did not earlier address. A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ; Grassia v. Scully , 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989). A court may accept those portions of a report to which no specific, written objection is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Ramirez v. United States , 898 F.Supp.2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). By contrast, when a petitioner makes specific objections to a magistrate judge's findings, the reviewing court must undertake a de novo review of those findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ; United States v. Male Juvenile , 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997).

2. Reviewing State Court Decisions Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

Under AEDPA, a federal court cannot grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim that was "adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings" unless the state court's decision: (i) "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States"; or (ii) "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). This is a "highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Cullen v. Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 181, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011) (quoting Woodford v. Visciotti , 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam) ). "A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington , 562 U.S. at 101, 131 S.Ct. 770 (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado , 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004) ).

Federal law is "clearly established" when it is expressed in "the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court's] decisions." Howes v. Fields , 565 U.S. 499, 505, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). A state court's decision is "contrary" to clearly established federal law when the state court "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in" a Supreme Court opinion or "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a ... different [result]." Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). And a state court's decision can only be considered "unreasonable" if "there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with [the Supreme] Court's precedents." Harrington , 562 U.S. at 102, 131 S.Ct. 770 ; see also Woods v. Donald , –––...