Haynes v. New York

• Decision Date: 21 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10-CV-5867 (JFB),10-CV-5867 (JFB)
• Citation: Haynes v. New York, No. 10-CV-5867 (JFB) (E.D. N.Y. Dec 21, 2012)
• Parties: JAMES T. HAYNES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

JAMES T. HAYNES, Petitioner,

v.PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

No. 10-CV-5867 (JFB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date: December 21, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:

James T. Haynes (hereinafter "Haynes" or "petitioner") petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction in County Court, Suffolk County. Petitioner pled guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree, a Class D Violent Felony (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.0 and 140.25(2)). Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment of twelve years to life as a persistent violent felony offender. The court also imposed a mandatory surcharge of $375.00 and issued the victim a permanent order of protection against petitioner.

In the instant petition, petitioner challenges his conviction on the following grounds: (1) New York's Sentence Enhancement Statute is unconstitutional; (2) petitioner was improperly adjudicated as a persistent violent felony offender; (3) petitioner's guilty plea was less than voluntary, knowing and intelligent; and (4) petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel. (Pet. at 2-3.)

For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The Court has adduced the following facts from the instant petition and the underlying record.¹

At approximately 9:15 a.m. on September 10, 2007, petitioner rode his bicycle to 450 Patchogue Yaphank Road, New York and illegally entered the building located there. (Apr. 9 H. at 33.) once inside, petitioner encountered Kimberly Quinones ("Quinones"), a resident of the home, and robbed her. (Id. at 33-34.) Petitioner proceeded to take $300.00 in cash, a quantity of marijuana from the night stand, a cell phone battery, and the house phone. (Id. at 34.) He then rode off on his bicycle to a nearby Hess gas station and bought cigarettes and mints.² (Id. at 35.)

Shortly after receiving a local notification on a burglary suspect, Police officers Frascogna and Rowe arrived at the gas station and found petitioner, who matched the description of the suspect, sitting on a fence behind the station. (Apr. 21 H. at 29.) The officers approached petitioner, asked him to identify himself, and to explain what he was doing there. (Id. at 29-30.) Haynes identified himself and informed the police that he was waiting for a cab. (Id.) The officers also questioned petitioner about whether he had anything on him; petitioner indicated that he possessed marijuana. (Id. at 30.) Petitioner then handed the marijuana over to the police officers; the officers proceeded to search petitioner and recovered $294.56, a pack of Newport cigarettes, a pack of mints, and a cell phone battery. (Id. at 30-31). While stopped, petitioner also informed police officers that he had just come from a house on County Road 101.³ (Apr. 9 H. at 72.) Petitioner said, "I went to the house to look for 'Boo' Jackson[,] who is a drug dealer in Coram and stole a .40 caliber pistol from a friend[.] I was there to get the gun[;] the girl answered the door and said Boo didn't sell drugs or have a pistol. She gave me all of her money and told me to leave." (Apr. 21 H. at 52.) During this brief questioning, petitioner did not indicate to police officers that he did not wish to speak with them.⁴ (Apr. 9 H. at 73.)

Approximately ten minutes after receiving the initial burglary notification, officer Bowen transported Quinones to the gas station to determine if petitioner was the individual who robbed her. (Apr. 21 H. at 5-7.) As officer Bowen drove past petitioner, Quinones immediately identified petitioner as the person who had committed the burglary. (Id. at 8-9.) While Quinones was driven past petitioner, Haynes stated, "That was the lady's house that I was in." (Id. at 31.)

At the Fifth Precinct, petitioner stated that he entered the victim's home and took $300.00 in cash, a quantity of marijuana, a cell phone battery, and the house phone.⁵ (Apr. 9 H. at 34.) As petitioner recounted the events that had taken place earlier, Detective Truesdell reduced petitioner's statements to a written document, which petitioner signed after having it read back to him. (Id. at 29-32.) Additionally, petitioner offered to show Detective Truesdell wherehe had disposed of the house phone after the burglary, and proceeded to do so after his statement had been taken. (Id. at 35.) Detective Truesdell found the phone in the location given to him by petitioner. (Id. at 36.)

B. Procedural History

1. Trial Court Proceedings

a. Huntley/Mapp Hearing

Petitioner was indicted in october 2007 under indictment number 3211-07. on April 9, 2008, and April 21, 2008, a suppression hearing was held to determine the admissibility of alleged statements made by petitioner to the police, and to determine if the identification procedure used by law enforcement was permissible. (opinion of the County Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, dated May 19, 2008 at 1.)

At the suppression hearing, petitioner's attorney argued that the oral statements made by Haynes at the gas station were inadmissible. (Apr. 21 H. at 53-54.) In support of her argument, petitioner's attorney said that the police officers had failed to warn petitioner of his Miranda rights before the contested statements were made, even though petitioner was allegedly under custody at the time. (Id. at 53.) With respect to petitioner's statements at the Fifth Precinct, petitioner's attorney urged that they be suppressed because the police had already failed to warn petitioner of his Miranda rights at the gas station; therefore, the recital of later Miranda warnings could not correct this failure. (Id. at 53-54). Additionally, petitioner's attorney argued that the exigent circumstances necessary to justify show-up identifications were not present in this case. (Id. at 51.)

As a threshold matter, the court determined that the People's witnesses (Detective Truesdell and Police officers Rathburn, Bowen and Frascogna) were accurate and truthful in their testimony. (opinion of the County Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, dated May 19, 2008 at 1.) The court then found that there was no evidence to suggest that petitioner's statement at the Fifth Precinct was involuntary or in any respects coerced. (Id. at 2.) The court proceeded to find that Detective Truesdell read petitioner the Miranda warnings before questioning him, and that petitioner voluntarily agreed to waive his rights and to speak with the police. (Id.) Therefore, the court concluded that petitioner "gave a voluntary, uncoerced confession to the police only after having been advised of, and knowingly waiving, his Miranda rights." (Id.) The court also noted that the statement petitioner made after Quinones was driven through the gas station was spontaneous and not made in response to any questioning. (Id.) Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's motion to suppress his statements. (Id.)

The court also denied petitioner's motion to suppress the out-of-court identification employed at the gas station. (Id. at 3.) The court found that petitioner's apprehension near the scene of the crime, along with the temporal proximity to the commission of the crime, was sufficient to deem the show-up identification permissible. (Id.)

b. The Plea Proceeding

On May 19, 2008, petitioner pled guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree, a Class D Violent Felony (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 140.25(2)). (P. at 20-21.) In exchange, the court agreed that it would impose a sentence of no more than 12 years to life imprisonment. (Id. at 3.) Beforeentering his plea, Haynes was fully advised of the nature of the charges against him and of the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea, including the right to appeal. (Id. at 6-8.) Petitioner stated that he was entering the plea voluntarily and of his own free will. (Id. at 8-9.) Petitioner also denied that he was subjected to any threats or coercion. (Id. at 9.) Moreover, petitioner confirmed that he was not under the influence of any drugs, medicine, alcohol, or any substance that could affect or impair his ability during the proceedings. (Id. at 9.) Finally, petitioner stated under oath that he had enough time to discuss the plea with his attorney and that he was satisfied with her representation in the case. (Id. at 5-6.)

Before entering his plea, petitioner consulted with his attorney and admitted to the accusations made in a predicate statement pursuant to § 400.16(2) of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. (Id. at 15, 18.) In its statement, the People accused Haynes of being previously subjected to two predicate violent felony convictions as defined in Penal Law § 70.04(1)(b). (Id. at 16.) Specifically, the People accused Haynes of being convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree on December 20, 2000, and of receiving a subsequent sentence of 7 years' incarceration on January 9, 2001. (Id. at 17.) Additionally, the People accused Haynes of being convicted of robbery in the second degree on August 4, 1983, and of receiving a subsequent sentence of one and a half to four and a half years' incarceration on August 4, 1983. (Id.) By admitting to this statement, petitioner recognized that the court would classify him as a persistent violent felony offender. (Id.) Petitioner did not raise any constitutional or other objections to the prior convictions contained in the predicate felony statement, even after being questioned by the court. (Id. at 17.)

c. Sentencing

On July 30, 2008, petitioner was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate period of imprisonment of twelve years to life. (S. at 7.) Further, the court imposed a mandatory surcharge of $375.00 upon petitioner and issued a permanent order of protection against him in favor of the victim, Miss Quinones. (Id. at 6.)

During the sentencing hearing, petitioner's counsel...