Jean v. Greene
| Decision Date | 14 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | 07 Civ. 11530 (KMW) |
| Parties | DARIUS JEAN, Petitioner, v. GARY GREENE, Warden, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
I. INTRODUCTION
Darius Jean ("Petitioner") brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his November 21, 2002 conviction in County Court, Rockland County, for murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, assault, and endangering the welfare of a child. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief: (1) that the trial court's instructions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and confused the jury; (2) that statements Petitioner made to police officers were involuntarily given and should have been suppressed; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
In a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") dated May 10, 2011, familiarity with which is assumed, Magistrate Judge Smith recommended that the Court deny the petition. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and of Petitioner's objections.For the following reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Smith's Report in full, and denies Petitioner's motion for a writ of habeas corpus.
II. BACKGROUND1
On August 5, 2002, a jury convicted Petitioner of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, assault, and endangering the welfare of a child. (Affirmation of Senior District Attorney Carrie A. Ciganek in Opposition to the Petition for Habeas Corpus ("Ciganek Aff.") ¶¶ 3, 10.) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to 25 years to life on the murder count, a concurrent term of imprisonment of 8 1/3 to 25 years on the manslaughter count, a concurrent term of imprisonment of 7 years on the assault count, and a concurrent term of imprisonment of 1 year on two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Petitioner timely moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law ("N.Y.C.P.L.") § 330.30(2) on the grounds of juror confusion; following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. (Id. ¶ 11.) Petitioner then timely moved to vacate the conviction pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L. §440.10(1)(h) on the grounds that Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the motion on August 18, 2003, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, denied Petitioner's motion for leave to appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) On May 4, 2004, Petitioner's appellate counsel filed a direct appeal with the Appellate Division, Second Department. Following argument on the matter, the Appellate Division affirmed Petitioner's conviction. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) See People v. Jean, 13 A.D.3d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Petitioner sought leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals on January 18, 2005; the Court of Appeals denied the application. (Ciganek Aff. ¶ 17.) See People v. Jean, 5N.Y.3d 764 (2005). On March 7, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Appellate Division, Second Department, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Ciganek Aff. ¶ 18.) In a decision dated September 18, 2007, the Appellate Division denied Petitioner's motion. (Id. ¶ 20.) See People v. Jean, 43 A.D.3d 1076 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Petitioner's motion to the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal was denied. (Ciganek Aff. ¶ 21.) See People v. Jean, 9 N.Y.3d 1007 (2007). On December 26, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
III. DISCUSSION
A district court must review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which timely written objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If neither party timely objects to the magistrate's report, the district court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Brito v. Phillips, 485 F. Supp. 2d 357, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Holwell, J.) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Petitioner filed objections to the Report's analysis of each of his four claims. The Court thus undertakes a de novo review of all four claims.
Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). AEDPA provides that a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner only if the state court's adjudication of a particular claim on the merits resulted in a decision that was (1) "contrary to, orinvolved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or (2) 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(d).
A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if it "applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases," or if it "confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a [Supreme Court decision] and nevertheless arrives at a [different] result." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000).
A state court decision involves an unreasonable application of federal law if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal rule but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the petitioner's case. Williams at 407. A state court decision can also involve an unreasonable application of federal law if it "unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply." Id. In order for a federal court to find a state court's application of Supreme Court precedent unreasonable, the state court decision must be more than incorrect: it must be "objectively unreasonable." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). This standard "falls somewhere between merely erroneous and unreasonable to all reasonable jurists." Jones v. Stinson, 229 F.3d 112, 119 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted).
Petitioner raises four grounds for habeas corpus relief: (1) that the trial court's instructions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and confused the jury (the "Jury Instruction claim"); (2) that Petitioner's statements wereinvoluntarily given and should have been suppressed (the "Fifth Amendment claims"); (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Petitioner first argues that the trial court's jury instruction on reasonable doubt impermissibly reduced the prosecution's burden of proof and confused the jury such that it was unreasonable for the Appellate Division to find that the instruction did not violate his constitutional rights. (Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Pet. Mem.") at 4.) The trial judge gave a pretrial instruction to the jury stating that reasonable doubt was "higher than 51 percent and something less than 100 percent." (Pet. Mem., Ex. F, Transcript of Proceedings at 51-53). When defense counsel objected to this mathematical illustration on the grounds that it suggested that the reasonable doubt standard was close to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the judge reinstructed the jury with a proper instruction. (Pet. Mem., Ex. F at 65-66). At the conclusion of trial, the jury charge concerning reasonable doubt was accurate.2 People v. Jean, 13 A.D. 3d 466 (2004). The Appellate Divisionfound that "any prejudice resulting from the County Court's improper pretrial instruction was obviated by the final charge given to the jury." Id. at 468.
The Report recommends dismissing Petitioner's Jury Instruction claim because, viewed in its entirety, the reasonable doubt instruction comports with established federal law. (Report at 17). Petitioner objects to this recommendation on the ground that the error was so egregious that any finding to the contrary would be unreasonable as a matter of law. (Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation ("Pet. Objs.") at 2.)
The Constitution requires a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993). When determining the constitutionality of a jury charge, a court must decide if, "taken as a whole, the instructions correctly convey the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury." Victor v. Nebraska, 114 S. Ct. 1239, 1243 (1994) (internal citations omitted). A jury's conviction will not be overturned unless a reviewing court concludes that it was "reasonably likely that the jury applied the wrong standard." Chalmers v. Mitchell, 73 F. 3d 1262, 1267 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). Stated another way, a defendant's due process rights are violated if he is evaluated by a standard lesser than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Consequently, a guilty verdict reached by application of a lesser standard "must be overturned." Id. While a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt charge is a ground for reversal of a conviction, "not every unhelpful, unwise, or even erroneous formulation of the concept of reasonable doubt in a jury charge renders the instruction constitutionally deficient." Vargas v. Keane, 86 F. 3d 1273, 1277 (2d Cir. 1996). "A challenged portion of the jury instructions may...
To continue reading
Request your trial