Flores v. Keane

• Decision Date: 13 June 2001
• Docket Number: No. 94 Civ. 5096(RMB)(MHD).,94 Civ. 5096(RMB)(MHD).
• Citation: 211 F.Supp.2d 426
• Parties: Lorenzo FLORES, Petitioner, v. John P. KEANE, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

211 F.Supp.2d 426

Lorenzo FLORES, Petitioner, v. John P. KEANE, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Respondent.

No. 94 Civ. 5096(RMB)(MHD).

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

June 13, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lorenzo Flores, Ossining, NY, pro se.

DECISION AND ORDER

BERMAN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

On or about January 27, 1997, Lorenzo Flores ("Flores" or "Petitioner") filed a petition pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York ("Petition"). Flores had been convicted, following a jury trial, on January 31, 1989, in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, of Murder in the Second Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25[2]) and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01) and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of twenty-five years to life on the murder conviction and one year on the weapon charge. The jury convicted Flores of stabbing Jose Amaro ("Amaro") to death on December 10, 1987 during an altercation which took place outside of a Bronx social club and which was witnessed by several people.¹ Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dated Dec. 19, 2000 at 2 ("Report") ("The altercation took place outside a Bronx nightclub and was witnessed by several acquaintances of Amaro and other onlookers. Following the stabbing by petitioner, he fled in a car. The police later arrested him, and two of the eyewitnesses identified him at a lineup.").

Petitioner asserts two grounds for habeas relief: (i) deprivation of his due process right to a fair trial by virtue of the prosecutor's allegedly "improper" remarks on summation;² and (ii) denial of his Sixth Amendment rights by virtue of alleged ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel.³

On December 19, 2000, the Honorable Michael H. Dolinger, United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York, to whom the matter had been (re)assigned, issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied on the merits and dismissed with prejudice. Report at 11 ("We first address the summation claim and then turn to the various Sixth Amendment claims pressed by the petitioner. We conclude that all of the claims are plainly meritless."). Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report ("Objections" or "Pet.'s Obj."), dated January 4, 2001;⁴ Respondent John P. Keane, Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, ("Respondent") has not filed any objections.

By order dated March 29, 2001, the Court directed that Magistrate Dolinger "elicit, by way of affidavit or hearing, the views of Petitioner's appellate counsel, Steven C. Losch, formerly Staff Attorney, Legal Aid Society of the City of New York ['Legal Aid Society'] and Philip L. Weinstein, formerly Attorney in Charge, Legal Aid Society, on the `ineffectiveness' issues alleged herein by Petitioner." Flores v. Keane, No. 94 Civ. 5906 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2001). Mr. Losch responded by affidavit dated April 26, 2001. Affidavit of Steven C. Losch, dated April 26, 2001 (Losch Aff.) ("I do not believe that Mr. Flores was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington standard ..."). Mr. Weinstein responded by affidavit dated April 4, 2001. Affidavit of Phillip L. Weinstein, dated April 4, 2001. On May 4, 2001, Magistrate Dolinger issued a Report and Recommendation ("Supplemental Report" or "Supp. Report"), concluding that "[b]ased on [the submissions of Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Losch] we have no reason to alter in any respect the original Report and Recommendation." Supp. Report at 2. Petitioner timely filed objections to the Supplemental Report by letter dated May 15, 2001 ("Objections to the Supplemental Report") ("After a careful review of the new Report Recommendation petitioner relies upon the original affidavit and pro se objection and the Supplemental letter that petitioner has raised a Substantial Constitutional Question.").

For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Magistrate Dolinger's Report and Supplemental Report in all material respects and concludes that Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus should be denied.

II. Background

Following his conviction, Petitioner filed an appeal in the Appellate Division, First Department in or about June 1991. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction on March 18, 1993. People v. Flores, 191 A.D.2d 306, 595 N.Y.S.2d 173 (N.Y.App. Div.1993) ("The prosecutor's asserted mischaracterization of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review by timely objection, and we decline to review the issue in the interest of justice. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it to be without merit.... The characterization of the defense as a smokescreen is within the bounds of fair comment.") (internal citations omitted). Petitioner thereafter sought leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals on March 31, 1993. That application was denied on May 11, 1993. People v. Flores, 81 N.Y.2d 1013, 600 N.Y.S.2d 201, 616 N.E.2d 858 (1993). On July 14, 1993, Petitioner filed a motion in the Appellate Division for a writ of error coram nobis.⁵ The First Department denied the coram nobis application on October 5, 1993. People v. Flores, 197 A.D.2d 940, 603 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y.App. Div.1993) ("Writ of coram nobis denied.").⁶

Petitioner filed his initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court on June 23, 1994. On November 14, 1994, he requested that his petition be dismissed without prejudice and his request was granted by an order of U.S. District Court Judge John E. Sprizzo, dated November 22, 1994. Flores v. Keane, No. 94 Civ. 5906 (S.D.N.Y. November 22, 1994) ("[I]t is ordered that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), the above-captioned action shall be and hereby is dismissed against defendant Koppell."). Petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition in this Court on April 17, 1995. Again, Petitioner asked that his petition be dismissed without prejudice and Judge Sprizzo granted that request also. Flores v. Keane, No. 94 Civ. 5906 (S.D.N.Y. April 1, 1996) ("[T]he above-captioned petition shall be and hereby is dismissed without prejudice.").

On August 20, 1997, Respondent moved to dismiss the instant Petition as time-barred by the one year limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) and (2). By order dated May 7, 1998, Judge Sprizzo adopted a Report and Recommendation, dated January 26, 1998, written by Magistrate Judge Leonard Berkinow⁷ ("Berkinow Report") and denied Respondent's motion to dismiss. Flores v. Keane, No. 94 Civ. 5906 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 1998).⁸ Magistrate Berkinow reasoned that "the one year statute of limitations period does not apply where ... the judgment of conviction became final before the effective date of the AEDPA, April 24, 1996." Berkinow Report at 4. Magistrate Berkinow stated that, in such cases, "the Second Circuit grants a petitioner a reasonable time after the enactment of the AEDPA to file his petition." Id. He also concluded that Petitioner's (nine month) delay in filing his habeas application was reasonable "in view of [his] efforts to exhaust state remedies."⁹ Id.

III. Standard of Review

A district court evaluating a Magistrate's report may adopt those portions of the report to which no "specific, written objection" is made, as long as those sections are not clearly erroneous. Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b); Letizia v. Walker, No. 97-CV-0333E(F), 1998 WL 567840, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 1998); Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F.Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y.1991). Where timely objections are made, the District Judge must make a de novo determination as to the objected to issues, but is not required to conduct a de novo hearing. See Cespedes v. Coughlin, 956 F.Supp. 454, 463 (S.D.N.Y.1997); East River Sav. Bank v. Secretary of Hous. and Urban Dev., 702 F.Supp. 448, 453 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Thereafter, a district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate. See DeLuca v. Lord, 858 F.Supp. 1330, 1345 (S.D.N.Y.1994). The Court must liberally construe the claims of a pro se litigant. See, e.g., Marmolejo v. United States, 196 F.3d 377, 378 (2d Cir.1999).

The legal measure for habeas corpus relief is contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the AEDPA,¹⁰ which provides:

(d) An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

The reviewing court should "defer to a state court's adjudication of a petitioner's claims on the merits unless the state court's decision was `contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'" Kutzner v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 605, 608 (5th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). Under the "contrary to" clause, a Federal habeas court may grant a writ "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the U.S. Supreme Court] on a question of law" or if the state court "confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to [the Court's decision]." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Under the "unreasonable application" clause, "a federal habeas court may grant relief if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably...