Gonzales v. Graham
| Decision Date | 17 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 9:17-cv-01321-JKS,9:17-cv-01321-JKS |
| Parties | JOSUE GONZALES, Petitioner, v. HAROLD D. GRAHAM, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Josue Gonzales, a New York state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gonzales is in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") and incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility. Respondent has answered the Petition, and Gonzales has replied.
On March 22, 2012, Gonzales was charged with second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon in connection with the August 2011 shooting of Angel Olmo in a gas station parking lot. At Gonzales's arraignment, the People noticed its intent to use identification testimony from four witnesses who had identified Gonzales from a photo array. The defense subsequently moved to suppress the identification evidence, and a Wade1 suppression hearing was held. At the hearing, the four witnesses were called and five photoarrays were marked and admitted as evidence. The defense called no witnesses. After hearing oral argument, the court issued a written decision denying the suppression motion.
The defense also moved prior to trial for the court to review the grand jury minutes to determine if lesser-included crimes should have been charged, if exculpatory evidence had been withheld from the grand jury, and whether a defense of justification should have been charged. In response, the court issued a written order concluding that the prosecutor improperly impeached a recalcitrant witness with his prior written statement, but that this "misconduct" was not "intentional or malicious" but was "borne of frustration stemming from the obstreperous and uncooperative behavior of the witness." Finding that the misconduct was isolated to that witness, and that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the indictment even without the testimony of the recalcitrant witness, the court denied Gonzales's motion to dismiss the indictment. After the defense orally reargued its dismissal motion, the court again denied the motion to dismiss the indictment.
Gonzales then proceeded to a jury trial. During the prosecutor's opening statement, he said that the The People then presented the testimony of eyewitnesses who testified that they had seen Gonzales and Olmo in an altercation at a bar on the evening of the shooting. A witness who had also been at the bar that evening, Travis Stachurski, testified that he drove to a gas station after the bar closed, where he saw Gonzales shoot Olmo.
After the People rested its case, the defense moved for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the People failed to present proof that Gonzales had a weapon or that he was close enough to the victim to have fired the fatal shots. The court denied the motion. The defense rested without presenting proof, and renewed the dismissal motion, which the court again denied.
During summation, the prosecution presented certain exhibits, including an autopsy photograph of Olmo. The prosecutor also argued that the People's witnesses were not less reliable because of their criminal histories or reluctance to testify, and referred to a demonstrative showing a jigsaw puzzle of a gun.
Following deliberations, the jury found Gonzales guilty of second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. After being polled at Gonzales's request, the jury was excused, and Gonzales asked to reserve any motions until sentencing. Prior to sentencing, Gonzales moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the prosecutor had committed misconduct during opening and summation and that the trial evidence was legally insufficient. The court denied the motion and subsequently sentenced Gonzales to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life imprisonment and a determinate term of 15 years' imprisonment, with five years of post-release supervision on each conviction, to be served concurrently.
Through counsel, Gonzales appealed his conviction, arguing that: 1) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce a prior consistent statement of the People's primary witness; 2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in the grand jury proceedings by acting as a witness, usurping the role of the grand jury, and improperly bolstering an eyewitness identification; 3) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert on identification testimony and for failing to request a missing witness instruction; 4) the verdict was against theweight of the evidence; 5) the prosecutor committed misconduct at trial by diluting the burden of proof, bolstering the credibility of the People's witnesses, and displaying prejudicial photographs to the jury; 6) the photo array identification procedure was unduly suggestive and deprived Gonzales of a fair trial; and 7) his sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment was harsh and excessive. Gonzales also argued in a pro se supplemental brief that: 1) he was denied of his right to be present at all material stages of the trial; 2) his absence from a proceeding during which a jury inquiry was received and answered violated his right to be present; 3) the trial court's failure to solicit unequivocal answers from potential jurors warrants reversal of his conviction; and 4) a reconstruction hearing is required to permit determination of the merit of certain of his claims. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment against Gonzales in a reasoned opinion issued on December 23, 2016. People v. Gonzales, 43 N.Y.S.3d 616, 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). The New York Court of Appeals denied leave without comment on June 8, 2017. People v. Gonzales, 86 N.E.3d 256, 256 (N.Y. 2017).
Gonzales then timely filed the instant undated pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to this Court, which was received and docketed on December 6, 2017. Docket No. 1 ("Petition"); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Briefing is now complete, and the Petition is before the undersigned judge for adjudication.
In his pro se Petition before this Court, Gonzales raises the arguments he unsuccessfully raised to the New York state courts on direct appeal through his counseled and pro se briefs. Specifically, Gonzales argues that: 1) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution tointroduce a prior consistent statement of the People's primary witness; 2) the prosecutor committed misconduct in the grand jury proceedings by acting as a witness, usurping the role of the grand jury, and improperly bolstering an eyewitness identification; 3) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert on identification testimony and for failing to request a missing witness instruction; 4) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; 5) the prosecutor committed misconduct at trial by diluting the burden of proof, bolstering the credibility of the People's witnesses, and displaying prejudicial photographs to the jury; 6) the photo array identification procedure was unduly suggestive and deprived Gonzales of a fair trial; 7) his sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment was harsh and excessive; 8) he was denied of his right to be present at all material stages of the trial; 9) his absence from a proceeding during which a jury inquiry was received and answered violated his right to be present; 10) the trial court's failure to solicit unequivocal answers from potential jurors warrants reversal of his conviction; and 11) a reconstruction hearing is required to permit determination of the merit of certain of his claims.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this Court cannot grant relief unless the decision of the state court was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," § 2254(d)(2). A state-court decision is contrary to federal law if the state court applies a rule that contradicts controlling Supreme Court authority or "if the state court confronts a set of facts thatare materially indistinguishable from a decision" of the Supreme Court, but nevertheless arrives at a different result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000). The term unreasonable is a common term in the legal world. The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that the range of reasonable judgments may depend in part on the nature of the relevant rule argued to be clearly established federal law. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004) ( ).
To the extent that the Petition raises issues of the proper application of state law, they are beyond the purview of this Court in a federal habeas proceeding. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam) (). It is a fundamental precept of dual federalism that the states possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law. See, e.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (); Walton v. Arizona, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial