Hunter v. Annucci
| Docket Number | 19-CV-1321 (MKB) |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Parties | JAMES HUNTER, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Petitioner James Hunter, proceeding pro se,[1] brings the above-captioned action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Pet., Docket Entry No. 1.) Petitioner's claims arise from a judgment of conviction in New York Supreme Court, Kings County (the “Trial Court”), for assault in the first degree under New York Penal Law (“N.Y.P.L.”) § 120.10(1). (Pet. 1 5.)
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following grounds: (1) he was denied constitutional and statutory rights, including his right to a fair trial and his right to effective assistance of counsel, because the Trial Court improperly handled a jury note; (2) he was unfairly and arbitrarily denied his statutory right to testify at a grand jury proceeding, in violation of his due process and equal protection rights; (3) he was denied his right to a grand jury indictment and his right to fair notice of the charges against him because misleading evidence was provided to the grand jury and the evidence presented at trial varied from that proof; (4) he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate counsel failed to raise the above issues and also failed to raise a claim that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. (See Pet.)
For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Petitioner's habeas petition.
On April 25, 2011, on the corner of Ditmas Avenue and East 22nd Street in Brooklyn, New York, Petitioner stabbed Rodwell Jones (the “Victim”) with a knife. (Aff. of Keith Dolan in Opp'n to Pet. (“Dolan Aff.”) ¶ 5, Docket Entry No. 10.) Petitioner admitted that he stabbed the Victim but claimed he acted in self-defense. (Id.)
Following Petitioner's arrest, Petitioner's attorney filed notice pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“N.Y.C.P.L.”) § 190.50(5), indicating that Petitioner wished to exercise his right to testify at the grand jury proceeding. (Id. ¶ 6.) On April 29, 2011, both in writing and on the record, Petitioner's attorney withdrew the notice of intent to testify before the grand jury. (Id.) On April 29, 2011, the grand jury voted to indict Petitioner with first-degree assault in violation of N.Y.P.L. § 120.10(1) and lesser included offenses. (Id. ¶ 7.) On May 12, 2011, the indictment was filed. (See Indictment, Hunter v. City of New York et al., No. 12-CV-6139 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2021), annexed to Brian Zapert Decl. as Ex. 17, Docket Entry No. 171-17, at 3.)
On May 10, 2011, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that his N.Y.C.P.L. § 190.50 right to testify before the grand jury had been violated. (Dolan Aff. ¶ 8.) Petitioner also claimed that, by denying him his right to testify, his attorney had denied him effective assistance of counsel and requested to have his attorney relieved. (Id.)
On June 2, 2011, the Trial Court assigned new counsel to represent Petitioner and on July 27, 2011, newly assigned counsel adopted and prosecuted Petitioner's pro se motion. (Id.) On August 16, 2011, the Trial Court denied Petitioner's motion to dismiss the indictment and denied Petitioner's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, finding that the attorney was permitted to withdraw his client's notice of intent to testify before the grand jury. (Id.)
Petitioner was tried before a jury in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, before the Honorable Danny K. Chun, from September 6, 2012 through September 12, 2012.[2]
1. Petitioner's relationship with the Victim
Petitioner and the Victim lived in the same neighborhood and used to be friends. (Tr. 25:1-18, 26:25-27:6.) Sometime in 2006, the Victim became romantically involved with the mother of Petitioner's child, whom the Victim had met through Petitioner. (Id. at 25:19-26:22.)
On April 24, 2011, the day before the offense, Petitioner called the Victim several times from a blocked number,[3] and, according to the Victim, told the Victim that he “broke a cardinal rule” and “[was] a dead man walking.” (Id. at 26:25-29:5.) That same day, a friend of both Petitioner and the Victim, Wisdom Davis, also received a phone call from Petitioner about the Victim's relationship with the mother of Petitioner's child and Petitioner told Davis “he was going to get [the Victim.]” (Id. at 109:8-110:4, 111:6-15.)
On April 25, 2011, at around 9:00 AM, the Victim noticed the windshield of his parked car was broken. (Id. at 29:14-30:12.) Suspecting that Petitioner broke the windshield, the Victim called Petitioner, who apologized and said he was going to compensate the Victim for the damages. (Id. at 30:13-31:18.)
At around 10:25 AM that same day, Davis spoke to Petitioner and asked him why he had smashed the Victim's windshield and suggested he compensate the Victim for the damages. (Id. at 111:21-112:2.) According to Davis, Petitioner replied that he would not compensate the Victim and insisted that “he [was] going to get [the Victim]” for having a relationship with the mother of his child. (Id. at 112:5-11.)
2. Stabbing incident
Sometime between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM, Petitioner called the Victim and asked him to meet at the intersection of Ditmas Avenue and East 22nd Street, Brooklyn. (Id. at 32:1-16.) Between 1:00 PM and 1:30 PM, the Victim drove to the intersection and spotted Petitioner's vehicle but not Petitioner. (Id. at 33:4-25.) According to the Victim's testimony, he became upset at Petitioner for not showing up, and approached Petitioner's vehicle with a jack handle, intending to smash the windshield. (Id. at 34:19-35:7, 37:4-11.) As he approached, Petitioner emerged from the driver's side of the vehicle with a long knife and stated, “I got you now.” (Id. at 37:22-38:15.) Petitioner “lung[ed]” toward the Victim with the knife, and the Victim swung the jack handle “to keep [Petitioner] from getting to [him].” (Id. at 39:19-40:19.) Petitioner pulled the jack handle from the Victim and stabbed the Victim four times in the abdomen.[4] (Id. at 41:3-8.) Petitioner then stabbed him in the left arm and he fell back, with Petitioner falling on top of him. (Id. at 42:11-14.) Petitioner pointed the knife toward the Victim's chest, and the Victim held onto Petitioner's knife-holding hand with both his hands to prevent the knife from going into his chest. (Id. at 41:15-42:5.) After people gathered around the scene stating, “you're going to kill that man,” Petitioner got up and took the Victim's jack handle with him and left the scene. (Id. at 42:6-15.) The Victim was thereafter taken to Kings County Hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery and was hospitalized for about three weeks. (Id. at 42:18-43:2.)
Police responded to the scene at approximately 1:30 PM. (Id. at 74:6-7, 76:9-18.) A few minutes later, Petitioner returned to the scene. (Id. at 80:25-82:5.) One of the responding officers, Captain William Taylor, found a knife and a yellow pipe in Petitioner's vehicle.[5] (Id. at 82:10-21.) Captain Taylor did not observe any bruising or cuts on Petitioner, nor did Captain Taylor recall Petitioner seeking medical attention. (Id. at 82:22-83:6.) Another officer at the scene, Officer Giuseppe Giuca, testified that Petitioner told him that he was experiencing some pain around his back and shoulder blade, but when asked if he wanted medical attention, Petitioner declined. (Id. at 203:23-204:5.) Officer Giuca did not observe any injuries on Petitioner's torso, back, or arms. (Id. at 204:6-13.)
At around 2:05 PM, Petitioner called the Victim's cell phone, and Davis answered. (Id. at 114:9-12.) According to Davis, Petitioner told Davis that he “had to do it.” (Id. at 114:1518.)
3. Surveillance video
Officer Giuca obtained a copy of a CD-R of surveillance video from a nursing home close to the scene of the stabbing, over a week after the assault. (Id. at 209:20-210:11, 214:311.) He was unable to play the video on his computer because he did not have the correct player, (id. at 210:22-211:10, 211:22-212:2), but he initially “had no reason to believe” the file was damaged, (id. at 212:12-23.)
In or around November of 2011, Officer Giuca provided the District Attorney's Office with the CD-R. (Id. at 217:8-11.) During trial, Officer Giuca learned from the technical services unit of the District Attorney's Office that the file was damaged. (Id. at 212:9-19.) Officer Giuca testified that he could not obtain another copy because most surveillance videos are stored for only thirty days. (Id. at 212:24-213:1.)
4. Medical records and expert testimony
Dr Chameeka Barrett, an emergency physician at the Kings County Hospital, introduced into evidence the medical records of the Victim and Petitioner. (Id. at 129:9-13, 131:6-12, 156:10-157:9.) Dr. Barrett testified that on April 25, 2011, the Victim was admitted to the hospital for having sustained one stab wound to the abdomen and one laceration to the left forearm.[6] (Id. at 137:13-22, 148:9-14.) From that single stab to the abdomen, the Victim sustained one laceration to his diaphragm, one to his large intestines, three to his small intestines, and one to his appendix. (Id. at 140:13-141:2.) Dr. Barrett described some of these injuries as “life-threatening.” (Id. at 142:8-10.) The Victim then underwent surgeries, for which he was placed under general anesthesia, to get his diaphragm, large and small intestines repaired, and his appendix removed. (Id. at 140:12, 17-19, 141:20-142:2.) The Victim later...
To continue reading
Request your trial