Hunt v. Artus
| Decision Date | 23 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-4665 (MKB) |
| Parties | YOSEPH HUNT, Petitioner, v. DALE A. ARTUS, Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Petitioner Yoseph Hunt, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at Southport Correctional Facility in Pine City, New York,1 filed the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 18, 2016, alleging that he is being held in state custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Pet.") 1, Docket Entry No. 1; Am. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Am. Pet.") 2, Docket Entry No. 18.) Petitioner's claims arise from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of New York State, Kings County, (the "Trial Court") on charges of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to New York Penal Law §§ 125.25 and 265.03. See People v. Hunt, 27 N.Y.S.3d 270, 271 (App. Div. 2016).
In his initial and amended petitions,2 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on thefollowing three grounds: (1) denial of the right to due process as a result of the prosecutors' late disclosure of a prior statement of a witness; (2) ineffective assistance of (a) trial counsel, for moving for a mistrial with prejudice rather than a mistrial without prejudice, and (b) appellate counsel, for failing to argue that trial counsel's mistrial motion constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for filing a facially inadequate brief. (Pet. 6; Am. Pet. 4-8.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the petition.
Prosecutors allege that on August 2, 2010, Petitioner shot Gary Biggs twelve times with a handgun after the mother of Petitioner's children told Petitioner that Biggs seriously injured her during a fight the previous day.3 (Aff. in Opp'n to Pet. ¶ 4, Docket Entry No. 39.) Petitioner was indicted for one count of second-degree murder and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to New York Penal Law §§ 125.25 and 265.03. (Id. ¶ 5.)
During the trial, prosecutors produced a written statement authored by one of the eyewitnesses to the shooting. , .) The prosecutor and defense counsel disagreed over whether prosecutors had previously disclosed the written statement to defense counsel during the discovery process. (Tr. 757:22-59:22, 761:7-67:6, 771:6-20.) The Trial Court assumed that prosecutors failed to turn over the statement and struck the entirety of the eyewitness' testimony but denied defense counsel's motion for a mistrial. (Tr. 771:17-20, 823:3-15, 887:24-88:12, 892:6-13.)
On June 6, 2012, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. (Tr. 1073:14-21.) On July 16, 2012, the Trial Court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent sentences of imprisonment for twenty-five years to life on the murder conviction and for seven years on the weapons possession conviction, followed by five years of post-release supervision. (Tr. of Sentencing Hr'g dated July 16, 2012, at 53:3-9, Docket Entry No. 39-7.)
Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of New York State, Appellate Division ("Appellate Division"). (Pet'r's App. Div. Br. 27-35, annexed to Aff. in Opp'n to Pet. as Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 39-8.) He argued that the Trial Court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial as a sanction for prosecutors' failure to turn over the eyewitness' written statement. (Id. at 27-35.) The Appellate Division rejected this argument. Hunt, 27 N.Y.S. 3d at 271. First, the Appellate Division held that Petitioner "did not demonstrate that he was entitled to the drastic remedy of a mistrial with prejudice and dismissal of the indictment" because "there was no evidence that [prosecutors] acted deliberately to provoke a mistrial." Id. Second, the Appellate Division noted that "the [Petitioner's] trial counsel made clear, via repeated and unequivocal use of the phrase 'with prejudice,' that [Petitioner's] motion was delimited in this fashion," and held that "[t]o the extent that [Petitioner] now argues that the [Trial] Court should have declared amistrial without prejudice, that argument is waived since it is inconsistent with the relief requested by [Petitioner] at trial." Id. at 271-72. The Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's request for leave to appeal on June 21, 2016. People v. Hunt, 27 N.Y.3d 1133 (2016).
On January 17, 2017, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Appellate Division, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because his assigned appellate counsel failed to make certain arguments on direct appeal concerning the ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to challenge a prospective juror, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, jury misconduct, pretrial suppression rulings, and Sandoval4 and Molineux5 rulings. (Pet'r's Pet. for Writ of Error Coram Nobis 1-6, annexed to Aff. in Opp'n to Pet. as Ex. E, Docket Entry No. 39-8.) The Appellate Division denied Petitioner's motion, explaining without elaboration that Petitioner had "failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel." People v. Hunt, 57 N.Y.S.3d 907, 907 (App. Div. 2017). The Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's application for leave to appeal on March 7, 2018. People v. Hunt, 31 N.Y.3d 984 (2018).
On February 26, 2018, Petitioner moved pro se before the Trial Court to vacate his convictions pursuant to New York Criminal Procedural Law ("N.Y. Crim Proc. L.") § 440.10. (Pet'r's Aff. in Supp. Art. 440 Mot. at 1-13, annexed to Aff. in Opp'n to Pet. as Ex. H, Docket Entry No. 39-8.) In his motion, Petitioner argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because, after trial counsel learned about the potential nondisclosure of the eyewitness' written statement, trial counsel failed to move for a mistrial without prejudice in addition to requesting a mistrial with prejudice. (Id. at 5-8.) The Trial Court rejected Petitioner's claim, finding that Petitioner failed to bring the claims on direct appeal as required by N.Y. Crim Proc. L. §§ 440.10(2)(c) and (3)(c), and also rejected the claim on the merits. (Decision & Order dated Dec. 3, 2018, at 2-3, annexed to Aff. in Opp'n to Pet. as Ex. J, Docket Entry No. 39-8.) Petitioner did not seek to appeal to the Appellate Division. (Aff. in Opp'n to Pet. ¶ 16.) Petitioner alleges that he intended to seek leave to appeal but prison officials prevented him from doing so. (Pet'r's Letter dated Jan. 9, 2019, at 2; Docket Entry No. 27; Pet'r's Letter dated Jan. 29, 2019, at 1-2, Docket Entry No. 29.)6
Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus on August 8, 2016, as well as an amended petition on March 16, 2018. (Pet. 15; Am. Pet. 21.) At Petitioner's request, the Court stayed this action and held it in abeyance between June 22, 2017 and July 22, 2019, so that Petitioner could exhaust his remedies in state court. (Min. Order dated June 22, 2017; Min. Order dated July 22, 2019.) On November 2, 2020, the Court denied Petitioner's motion for anevidentiary hearing, noting that it would revisit Petitioner's request if a review of the record revealed that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. (Order dated Nov. 2, 2020, at 2, Docket Entry No. 44.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment may only be brought on the grounds that his or her custody is "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A petitioner is required to show that the state court decision, having been adjudicated on the merits, is either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law" or "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Shoop v. Hill, --- U.S. ---, ---, 139 S. Ct. 504, 406 (2019) (per curiam) ; Kernan v. Hinojosa, --- U.S. ---, ---, 136 S. Ct. 1603, 1604 (2016) (per curiam); Hittson v. Chatman, 576 U.S. 1028, 1028 (2015); Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312, 313 (2015) (per curiam); Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 292 (2013). "An 'adjudication on the merits' is one that '(1) disposes of the claim on the merits, and (2) reduces its disposition to judgment.'" Bell v. Miller, 500 F.3d 149, 155 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 313 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also Kernan, 136 S. Ct. at 1606; Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011). Under the section 2254(d)standards, a state court's decision must stand as long as "fair minded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the . . . decision." Richter, 562 U.S. at 101 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
For the purposes of federal habeas review, "clearly established law" is defined as "the holdings, as opposed to dicta, of Court's decisions as of the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial