Green v. Warren

• Decision Date: 20 December 2013
• Docket Number: Civil No. 12-6148 (ES)
• Parties: AL-QUAADIR GREEN, Petitioner, v. CHARLES E. WARREN, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

AL-QUAADIR GREEN, Petitioner, v. CHARLES E. WARREN, et al., Respondents.

Civil No. 12-6148 (ES)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

December 20, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Al-Quaadir Green ("Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondents are Charles E. Warren and Jeffrey S. Chiesa. For the reasons stated herein, the petition will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This Court, affording the state court's factual determinations the appropriate deference, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)¹, will simply reproduce the recitation of facts as set forth by Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on direct appeal:

On the evening of May 18, 2001, Christian Made, Juana Ozuna, Sofia Rodriguez, Sofia's sister Roseanna Rodriguez and Marisol Rosario went to a club in Jersey City. They stayed until closing time and Made drove the group home, as he had driven them to the club. He took the exit from Route 280 and at the bottom of the ramp, pulled his car over. Several witnesses said he did so because Ozuna was illfrom drinking too much. They all got out of the car. Roseanna Rodriguez lived approximately two blocks away, and she decided to walk home. Another car pulled up, with three occupants. The driver and rear-seat passenger were male, the front-seat passenger was female; all were African-American. The driver asked if everything was all right, and the group said yes. Marisol Rosario noticed the rear-seat passenger lean forward and whisper something to the driver, and she immediately sensed trouble and told Sofia Rodriguez they should leave. As she said this, she saw the man sitting in the rear passenger seat get out of the car, holding a small black gun. She walked quickly across the street and hid in a stairwell.

Sofia Rodriguez got into the driver's seat of their car and told Ozuna and Made they had to leave. She saw one of the two males from the other car strike Made, who got into the passenger seat next to Rodriguez and said they were being robbed.

One of the robbers was standing next to Sofia Rodriguez, who was in the driver's seat. Rodriguez gave her pocketbook to the assailant and realized he had a gun. He then reached across her into the car and took the keys from the ignition. He then shot her in the head and she passed out.

Marisol Rosario, who was hiding across the street, heard several shots. When she heard the other car drive away, she ran to a cousin's house, which was nearby. When Sofia Rodriguez regained consciousness, Made was leaning on her; he had been shot in the right temple. Ozuna was lying on the street, in a pool of blood. Sofia Rodriguez ran to the same house as had Marisol Rosario, saying she had been shot.

Later that morning, Newark police gave Marisol Rodriguez a series of books containing mug shots of African-American males and African-American females. After looking through them, she did not see anyone she could identify.

Police and emergency personnel responded to the scene. Four .380 caliber shell casings and a projectile fragment were recovered from the front passenger seat of the victims' car. These shell casings matched casings and a bullet fragment recovered approximately two weeks earlier from the scene of a May 6 shooting at 611 Martin Luther King Boulevard. Testing revealed that the bullets recovered at the autopsies of Ozuna and Made were fired from the same gun that had been used in the earlier shooting.

Latique Mayse was the victim of the May 6 shooting, and he wasinterviewed by Detective Vincent Vitiello of the Newark Police Department. Detective Vitiello testified that Mayse gave a statement in which he said he was "absolutely certain" that defendant was the person who had shot him. Mayse identified defendant as the shooter in a photo array and also identified Omar Auston as a person who was with defendant at the time of the shooting.

At defendant's trial, Mayse denied that defendant shot him on May 6, and said that he could not remember giving a statement to that effect and could not remember selecting defendant's picture. Mayse was then confronted with testimony he had given to a grand jury, in which he had said he met defendant on the street on May 6 and that defendant had a silver and black .380 caliber gun. Mayse had also told the grand jury that the earlier statement he had given to Detective Vitiello was accurate. In response, Mayse said he did not recall that testimony and that the grand jury transcript was inaccurate.

Investigator Robert Harris of the Essex County Prosecutor's Office learned of the ballistics match between the May 6 shooting and the killings of Made and Ozuna and that Mayse had identified defendant as the May 6 shooter. Based upon that, he prepared separate photo arrays including defendant's picture and Auston's picture and showed them to Sofia Rodriguez and Marisol Rosario. Neither could make any identification although Rosario indicated one picture might be that of the driver of the car.

Several weeks later, defendant and Omar Auston were arrested in New York City. Defendant had a .380 caliber gun and Auston a 9 millimeter at the time of their arrests. Ballistics tests linked that .380 caliber gun to the May 6 and May 19 shootings. Harris learned of these arrests and presented to Sofia Rodriguez and Marisol Rosario photo arrays that had been compiled by New York police. Rodriguez selected defendant's picture as the man who had shot her, and Rosario selected Auston's picture as the driver of the car. Defendant and Auston were arrested and charged with the May 19 shootings.

State v. Green, 2008 WL 3067920, at *1-3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 7, 2008).

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of the following: two counts of murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2); two counts of felony murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); one count of attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, 11-3; four counts of robbery while armed, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, 15-1; one count of aggravated assault, N.J.S.A.2C:12-1(b)(2); one count of unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and one count of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a). Id. The state court sentenced Petitioner to two consecutive life terms, each with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility. Id. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, id., and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification, State v. Green, 960 A.2d 396 (N.J. 2008).

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR") on December 18, 2008 and after oral argument, the trial court denied the petition on October 5, 2009. State v. Green, 2012 WL 75113, at * 2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 11, 2012). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision. Id. On July 10, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification. State v. Green, C-1110 (N.J. 2012).

On September 10, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. (D.E. No. 1 ("Pet.")). In response to this Court's notice pursuant to Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000), (D.E. No. 3), Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition. (D.E. No. 6). Respondents filed a response to the request for a stay, (D.E. No. 12), and an answer to the petition. (D.E. No. 15). Petitioner filed a reply regarding the stay, (D.E. No. 18), and a reply to Respondents' answer to the petition. (D.E. No. 20). While his habeas petition has been pending before this Court, Petitioner filed a second PCR petition in state court, which was denied on May 29, 2013. (D.E. No. 16-8, Resp'ts' Br., Ex. 20, 2^nd PCR Order, May 29, 2013).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus inbehalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

. . .

(d) An application for a 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; or

(2) resulted in a decision that 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.

"As amended by AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 sets several limits on the power of a federal court to grant an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a state prisoner." Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). Section 2254(a) permits a court to entertain only claims alleging that a person is in state custody "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Id. A federal court's authority to grant habeas relief is further limited when a state court has adjudicated petitioner's federal claim on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).² If a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings, this Court "has no authorityto issue the writ of habeas corpus 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,' or 'was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'" Parker v. Matthews, 132 S.Ct. 2148, 2151 (2012) (quoting 28...