Coleman v. Noeth
| Decision Date | 14 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 18-CV-4498(KAM) |
| Parties | DONNELL COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH H. NOETH, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Presently before the court is a petition brought by Donnell Coleman ("Mr. Coleman" or "Petitioner"), acting pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Section 2254"). (See generally ECF No. 1, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Pet.").) Mr. Coleman challenges his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Mr. Coleman was convicted of gang assault in the first degree, and sentenced to seventeen years in prison. Pursuant to that sentence, Mr. Coleman is currently incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility in Stormville, New York.1
For the reasons herein, Mr. Coleman's petition is respectfully DENIED in its entirety.
In the early morning of November 27, 2010, Petitioner was with a group of several other people at a nightclub in Queens County, New York. (ECF No. 6, Respondent's Opposition to Petition ("Opp."), at 12-13.) According to the testimony of witnesses, a physical altercation broke out between Haroon Walfall ("Mr. Walfall") and four to six men, including Petitioner. (Id. at 13-140.) Shortly after the initial altercation ended, as Mr. Walfall was being escorted out of the nightclub, a group of eight to ten men attacked Mr. Walfall. (Id. at 14-15.) A large fight ensued that lasted for several minutes. (Id. at 15-16.) One of Mr. Walfall's cousins, who witnessed the incident, testified that after the fight was over, an unidentified individual who had been with Petitioner said, "That's what your cousin gets for dancing with somebody else's girlfriend." (Id. at 17; see ECF No. 8, State Court Record, Trial Transcript ("Tr."), at 431.)
After the fight, nobody who witnessed the fight called the police. (See Tr. at 378, 537, 686, 705, 932.) According to one witness, Mr. Walfall "was a mess," and there was "blood everywhere." (Opp. at 16.) Later that morning, Mr. Walfall's cousin took Mr. Walfall to Franklin General Hospital in Valley Stream, New York. (Id. at 17.) Mr. Walfall died at thehospital at 3:50 a.m. (Id. at 17-18.) An autopsy revealed that Mr. Walfall sustained at least eleven blows to the head, and that he had multiple blunt force injuries to his body. (Id. at 18.)
Petitioner was arrested four months later in connection with the assault at the nightclub. (Id. at 20.) Petitioner was charged with manslaughter in the first degree, gang assault in the first degree, gang assault in the second degree, and assault in the second degree.
Petitioner's trial in Queens County Supreme Court began with jury selection on February 26, 2013. Petitioner was tried along with Savann Hemmings ("Mr. Hemmings"), who was also accused of involvement in the assault on Mr. Walfall.
At trial, the prosecution's case consisted primarily of the testimony of eyewitnesses, including bouncers and nightclub patrons. The prosecution's theory of the case was that Petitioner attacked Mr. Walfall because Mr. Walfall had been dancing with Petitioner's girlfriend. Two witnesses testified that they saw Petitioner involved in the initial altercation with Mr. Walfall. (Tr. at 688-89, 862.) One witness who saw that incident was unable to say whether Petitioner was involved. (Id. at 662.) Mr. Walfall's cousin testified that Petitioner initiated the subsequent fight bypunching Mr. Walfall (id. at 344-45), and another witness testified that during that fight, Petitioner was an "aggressor" who was "kicking and punching [Mr. Walfall] violently" (id. at 675-77).
The prosecution also elicited testimony from Dr. Brian O'Reilly ("Dr. O'Reilly"), the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of the Nassau County Medical Examiner's Office, who performed the autopsy on Mr. Walfall. (Id. at 440-46.) Dr. O'Reilly described the victim's various injuries, which were primarily external. (Id. at 445, 447, 450.) It was Dr. O'Reilly's opinion that if the victim had lived, none of his injuries would have required him to remain in the hospital. (Id. at 494.)
Dr. O'Reilly determined that the victim suffered from a mild form of idiopathic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ("IHC"), or an enlarged heart. (Id. at 450, 494, 496.) Dr. O'Reilly testified that IHC can lead to sudden death, especially after physical activity, and is the leading cause of heart-related deaths for people under 30. (Id. at 496-97.) Dr. O'Reilly further testified that the victim died from cardiac dysrhythmia or heart attack following blunt force injury to his head, torso, and extremities, with qualifying conditions of IHC and sarcoidosis. (Id. at 476-78.) Specifically, Dr. O'Reilly testified that "the blunt trauma would have caused [the victim] to become excitable, heart rate increased, blood pressure wouldhave increased and that precipitated his heart to go into a dysrhythmia." (Id. at 481.) Dr. O'Reilly also testified that the victim would not have died from his injuries but for having IHC. (Id. at 478.) Thus, Dr. O'Reilly determined that IHC was not the immediate cause of the victim's death, but was a contributing factor. (Id. at 476-78.)
During Dr. O'Reilly's testimony, the prosecution introduced into evidence photographs from the victim's autopsy, including a photograph of the victim's bloodied head with his scalp partially removed. (Id. at 450-52, 465.) Petitioner's counsel objected to admission of the photograph on the ground that its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value. (Id. at 452-53.) The state court trial judge allowed the photograph to be introduced, because it showed the hemorrhage within the muscle, which the jury might use to determine if the fight resulted in a serious injury. (Id. at 454.) Petitioner did not object to the introduction of any of the other autopsy photographs that were introduced into evidence. (Id. at 455.)
Petitioner's key piece of evidence at trial was surveillance video from outside the entrance to the nightclub. (See Opp. at 20.) The video showed Petitioner leaving the nightclub at 2:30 a.m., after several people had exited. (Id.) Petitioner then re-entered the nightclub at 2:32 a.m., retrieved a shirt or a jacket, and walked back out. (Id.) Petitioner'scounsel argued that the video showed Petitioner being ejected from the nightclub after the initial altercation, and then calmly returning to retrieve his coat, which did not comport with the actions of somebody who allegedly committed a violent assault. (Tr. at 1024-25.)
During the prosecution's summation, the prosecutor argued to the jury that the case was about Petitioner "taking umbrage that somebody would have the audacity to dance with his girlfriend." (Id. at 1038.) The prosecutor stated that Petitioner felt it was "[n]ot okay for his property, not okay for his cattle" to dance with someone else. (Id.) Petitioner's counsel objected immediately after the prosecutor's "cattle" comment, which was sustained, and the judge told the jury to disregard the statement. (Id. at 1039.)
At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted Petitioner of gang assault in the first degree, and acquitted him of the other charges. (Opp. at 3.) Petitioner's co-defendant, Mr. Hemmings, was convicted of assault in the third degree. (Id.) On July 11, 2013, the state court sentenced Petitioner as a second violent felony offender to a term of imprisonment of eighteen years, to be followed five years of post-release supervision. (Id.)
Petitioner, through assigned counsel, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Appellate Division, Second Department. See generally Brief for Defendant-Appellant, People v. Coleman, 148 A.D.3d 717 (2d Dept. 2017); (ECF No. 11-1). First, Petitioner argued on appeal that the jury's acquittal of the first-degree manslaughter charge demonstrated that the evidence was not legally sufficient to show either that: (1) he had the intent to cause serious physical injury, or (2) he actually caused serious physical injury. (Id. at 19-27.) Second, Petitioner argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. (Id. at 27-31.) Third, Petitioner argued that the prosecutor's remarks during summation, that the case was about Petitioner "taking umbrage that somebody would have the audacity to dance with his girlfriend" and thought it was improper for his "cattle" to dance with someone else, prejudiced the jury. (Id. at 31-32.) Fourth, Petitioner argued that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to view the autopsy photograph of the victim. (Id. at 33-37.) Finally, Petitioner argued that he was improperly sentenced as a second-time violent felon. (Id. 38-45.)
In a decision dated March 1, 2017, the Appellate Division rejected the majority of Petitioner's arguments. See generally People v. Coleman, 148 A.D.3d 717 (2d Dept. 2017).The Appellate Division agreed with Petitioner regarding his sentence, holding that Petitioner "was improperly sentenced as a second violent felony offender," because his prior conviction for possession of a weapon in the third degree did not count as a violent offense. Id. at 718-19. The case was remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing. Id. at 719.
Petitioner sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. See generally Leave Application for Petitioner, People v. Coleman, 29 N.Y.3d 1077 (2017). In his application, Petitioner asked for the Court of Appeals to review all of the claims that he raised to the Appellate Division. On June 26, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's application. People v. Coleman, 29 N.Y.3d 1077 (2017).
On May 2, 2017, Petitioner appeared before the Queens County Supreme Court for re-sentencing. The court imposed a sentence of seventeen years of imprisonment, one year less than his original sentence, and five years of post-release supervision. (Opp. at 7.)
Petitioner moved to reduce...
To continue reading
Request your trial