Carrasquillo-Fuent v. Noeth
| Decision Date | 08 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 9:18-CV-0415 (GTS) |
| Parties | EMILIER CARRASQUILLO-FUENT, a/k/a EMILIER CARRASQUILLO-FUENTES, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH NOETH, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
JAMES FOSTER GIBBONS, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
Petitioner Emilier Carrasquillo-Fuent ("petitioner") filed his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 5, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Because the petition contained vague and indiscernible claims, the Court provided petitioner an opportunity to file an amended petition. Dkt. No. 6. Petitioner submitted his amended petition to the Court on or about June 14, 2018. Dkt. No. 7, Am ended Petition ("Am. Pet."). On June 21, 2018, the Court directed respondent to answer the amended petition. Dkt. No. 8. Respondent opposes the amended habeas petition. Dkt. No. 15, Response; Dkt. No. 15-1, Respondent's Memorandum of Law ( ); Dkt. No. 16 State Court Records Part I ("SCR"); Dkt. No. 17 State Court Records Part II ("Trial Transcript"). On January 18, 2019, petitioner filed his reply. Dkt. No. 21 ("Traverse").
For the reasons that follow, petitioner's amended habeas petition is denied and dismissed.
On August 21, 2010, two people were shot in the parking lot of a gas station located on South Geddes Street in Syracuse, New York. Trial Transcript at 60-61, 449-50, 513, 520-22.1 One of those victims, Luis Quinones, died as a result of the gunshot wounds. Id. at 449-50.
On September 7, 2010, petitioner and a co-defendant were indicted in Onondaga County, New York, for murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree arising out of the shooting that occurred on August 21, 2010. SCR at 68-69; Trial Transcript at 50-51. Petitioner and his co-defendant were jointly tried by a jury in Onondaga County Court between May 13-28, 2013. See Trial Transcript. As relevant to petitioner's pending habeas petition, at trial, the prosecution introduced a recording of a 911 telephone call made by Lisa Ball, who witnessed the shooting. Id. at 470.2 The prosecution also called Dr. Stoppacher,the Onondaga County Chief Medical Examiner, who testified concerning, among other things, the origin of the bullets found in Luis Quinones' body following his death. Id. at 1478-1486. On May 28, 2013, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury found petitioner guilty of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Id. at 1826. On June 24, 2013, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of 50 years to life imprisonment. SCR at 437-38.
Following his sentence, petitioner appealed the jury's verdict to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. In his counseled brief, petitioner claimed, among other things, that the admission of the 911 telephone call recording violated his Sixth Amendment rights. SCR at 3-54. Petitioner also filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming, among other things, that (1) the prosecution delayed pretrial discovery in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and (2) the trial court erred by failing to provide a read-back of certain trial testimony at the request of the jury. Id. at 467-508. On September 30, 2016, the Appellate Division rejected all of petitioner's foregoing claims. SCR at 526-29; People v. Carrasquillo-Fuentes, 142 A.D.3d 1335 (4th Dep't 2016). On January 6, 2017, the New York State Court of Appeals denied petitioner's leave to appeal. SCR at 537.
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to federal habeas relief for the following six reasons: (1) the prosecution withheld the identity of the 911 caller ("Ground One"); (2) the prosecution withheld evidence showing that one of the bullets found in the Luis Quinones' back did not match the other bullets that were discovered ("Ground Two"); (3) the prosecution withheld video footage of the shooting ("Ground Three"); (4) the New York StateCourt of Appeals denied him the opportunity to exhaust his state court remedies ("Ground Four"); (5) petitioner was convicted using a coerced confession from Michael Fuentes-Diaz ("Fuentes-Diaz"), a witness that testified for the prosecution at trial ("Ground Five"); and (6) the trial court erred in failing to read back a portion of the trial testimony as requested by the jury ("Ground Six"). Am. Pet. at 7-11.
Respondent opposes the petition arguing as follows: (1) the state courts properly rejected petitioner's claim concerning the admissibility of the 911 recording; (2) the state courts properly rejected petitioner's claim that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence; (3) petitioner's claim that the prosecution withheld an exculpatory video recording of the crime is procedurally barred; (4) petitioner's claim that the New York State Court of Appeals interfered with his ability to exhaust his state court remedies is not cognizable; (5) petitioner's claim that Fuentes-Diaz's confession was coerced is procedurally defaulted and meritless; and (6) petitioner's claim that the trial court erred in failing to read back a witness' testimony for the jury is procedurally barred and meritless. Resp. Memo. at 12-25.
Petitioner filed a reply, contending as follows: (1) the recording of the 911 call was testimonial and its admission violated his Sixth Amendment rights; (2) the prosecution did not disclose the existence of the fourth .380 bullet or Dr. Stoppacher's new theory until days before trial; (3) petitioner presented the issue of whether the prosecution had an exculpatory video recording of the crime to the trial court; (4) petitioner has exhausted state court remedies to the best of his ability; (5) Fuente-Diaz's confession was coerced and his testimony at trial was not credible; and (6) the trial court's failure to read back to the jury part of a witness' testimony deprived petitioner of a fair trial. See Traverse.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court only if, based upon the record before the state court, the state court's decision (1) "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) "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); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011); Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 120-21 (2011); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007). This standard is "highly deferential" and "demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U.S. 594, 598 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that "a federal habeas court may overturn a state court's application of federal law only if it is so erroneous that 'there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with th[e Supreme] Court's precedents.'" Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505, 508-09 (2013) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011)); see Metrish v. Lancaster, 569 U.S. 351, 358 (2013) () (quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 103)).
Additionally, AEDPA foreclosed "'using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.'" Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 38 (2012) (quoting Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 779 (2010)). A state court's findings are not unreasonable under Section 2254(d)(2) simply because a federal habeas court reviewing the claim in the first instance would have reached a different conclusion. Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010). "The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable-a substantially higher threshold." Schriro, 550 U.S. at 473.
Federal habeas courts must presume that the state courts' factual findings are correct unless a petitioner rebuts that presumption with "clear and convincing evidence." Schriro, 550 U.S. at 473-74 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)). "A state court decision is based on a clearly erroneous factual determination if the state court failed to weigh all of the relevant evidence before making its factual findings." Lewis v. Conn. Comm'r of Corr., 790 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, "[w]hen a state court rejects a federal claim without expressly addressing that claim, a federal habeas court must presume that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits[.]" Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 301 (2013).
Petitioner claims, as he did on direct appeal to the Appellate Division, that the trial court's admission of the recording of the 911 call from the night of the crime violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. Am. Pet. at 5; Traverse at 5-8. Respondent contends that the state court's determination was reasonable and is entitled to deference.Resp. Memo at 18-20.
The Appellate Division concluded that the 911 call was nontestimonial and therefore its admission did not violate the Sixth Amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial