Kates v. Superintendent of the Attica Corr. Facility

• Docket Number: 19-CV-6647 (CJS)
• Decision Date: 22 August 2023
• Parties: ALEXANDER KATES, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and the STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

1

ALEXANDER KATES, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and the STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondents.

No. 19-CV-6647 (CJS)

United States District Court, W.D. New York

August 22, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER

Charles J. Siragusa, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Alexander Kates's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he asks the Court to vacate the judgment of the Monroe County (New York) Court convicting him upon his plea of guilty of kidnapping in the second degree. Pet., 63, Sept. 3, 2019, ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, Kates's application [ECF No. 1] is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

The reader is presumed to be familiar with the facts and procedural history of this action. In September 2017, Kates was arraigned in Monroe County Court on a grand jury indictment charging him with one count of kidnapping in the first degree, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree, one count of criminal use of a firearm, and multiple counts of burglary. 09/17/2014 Tr., 2, May 11, 2020, ECF No. 21-7.

Through pretrial motion practice, Kates's appointed counsel was able to secure dismissal of the kidnapping in the first degree charge, and the suppression of evidence gathered in the search of two separate of Kates's addresses, a phone found at one of the premises, and in the search and monitoring of his car. 02/24/2015 Tr., 9, May 11, 2020, ECF No. 21-11; 04/14/2015 Plea Tr., 2, May 11, 2020, ECF No. 21-14. Even so, Kates expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel because he found his pretrial motions to be “somewhat inadequate,” because he “don't have any input in my defense,” and because counsel was not preserving all of the issues that Kates wanted to be preserved. 02/24/2015 Tr. at 3-10. When the trial court asked him to list the specific issues that he wanted preserved, Kates indicated that he wasn't prepared to go through the entire list but would submit a memorandum of law for the court's consideration. 02/24/2015 Tr. at 11. It is not clear from the record whether he ever did so.

Less than two months later, Kates was indicted by a second grand jury on the kidnapping in the first degree charge, and the prosecution and Kates's trial counsel entered in to serious negotiations regarding a plea agreement. 04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 3. Kates initially rejected the plea offer, which the prosecutor then put on the record as follows:

That would have been a plea of guilty to Kidnapping in the Second Degree . . . with a sentence promise of 16 years [imprisonment] . . . and a 5 year period of postrelease supervision. The execution of a Waiver of Appeal, the admission at the time of sentencing to being a second violent felony offender, as well as any appropriate orders of protection, and any restitution orders.

04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 4-5. Kates's trial counsel then confirmed that he had originally received an offer of 18 years imprisonment and “had a couple of conversations with” Kates about it, that the prosecutor had reduced the promised term of imprisonment to 16 years that afternoon, and that counsel “had further discussions with Mr. Kates about that, and yes, we are rejecting that offer.” 04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 5.

After defense counsel indicated that Kates was rejecting the plea offer, the trial court held a colloquy directly with Kates:

THE COURT: Mr. Kates, is that correct? You've had a chance to speak to [defense counsel] and it is your decision that you don't want to take advantage of that offer?

[KATES]: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. You understand, sir, I don't have any position one way or another whether you should take it or not, that's up to you and your attorney. I'm sure you discussed with [defense counsel] the range of sentences that you could be sentenced to if you're convicted of the charge or charges in the various indictments, including the fact that it's possible you could receive consecutive time on certain charges. You understand that?

[KATES]: We didn't discuss that portion.

THE COURT: Well, you understand that the kidnapping charges and the burglary charge of the Jewelry Lab could be sentenced consecutively, one after the other? So if you're convicted of Kidnapping in the First Degree, the sentence will be . . . 25 to life .... [m]aximum sentence. And then on the Burglary the maximum I believe would be seven years .... And those could be one on top of the other. Again, it doesn't affect me, it doesn't matter to me one way or another what you do, Mr. Kates, but you should understand the parameters of what is being offered to you. When you're offered 16 determinate it means you don't have to do life. It means you're eligible after six-sevenths of that 16 years to be placed on postrelease supervision. Do you think you've had enough time to consider all those things?

[KATES]: Can I have three more minutes?

THE COURT: Sure, you can.

04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 6-7.

When the hearing resumed, the prosecution indicated that it had had a further discussion with defense counsel, and that if Kates pled guilty, the prosecution would return evidence seized from Kates' home and his car, “to the extent that it is not needed for . . . [prosecution of the] remaining co-defendant . . . [and] to the extent the requested property is not considered contraband . . . as soon as appropriate.” 04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 8. Then, defense counsel stated that Kates would enter a plea to kidnapping in the second degree, and Kates affirmed. 04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 8-9.

Once defense counsel stated that Kates was willing to accept the prosecution's plea offer, the trial court had a further colloquy with him. 04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 8-9. In addition to satisfying the court that he was old enough, was able to understand English, and was not under the influence of any intoxicants or medications, Kates also indicated that he had had sufficient time to discuss the plea with counsel, that he was satisfied with counsel's representation, and that he wished to accept the plea. 04/14/2015 Plea Tr. at 9-10. The plea colloquy therefore proceeded:

THE COURT: Do you understand, Mr. Kates, you don't have to plead guilty, you have the right to a trial? We had one scheduled for you in May. By pleading guilty you're giving up your right to that trial, do you understand that?

[KATES]: Yes.

THE COURT: Pleading guilty is the same as if you went to trial and you were convicted by unanimous jury of this lesser charge of the Kidnapping in the Second Degree, do you understand that?

[KATES]: Yes.

THE COURT: By pleading guilty you're giving up your right to make the People prove their case against you beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that?

[KATES]: What is reasonable doubt?

THE COURT: - Reasonable doubt is something that the jury would be asked to consider. It's an actual doubt. A doubt that's not based on speculation or whim. It's not required that the People prove their case to a mathematical certainty or beyond all possible doubt, but it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As there's a full instruction on what that is that the jury would consider and if they found that that burden was satisfied, they would be directed to find you guilty. If they found that burden was not satisfied, they would be directed to find you not guilty. So you understand that by pleading guilty you're giving up your right to make them prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

[KATES]: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand you're pleading guilty to a violent felony offense?

[KATES]: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand that if you're convicted again of another violent felony or another felony in New York State within 10 years of being released on this charge, you'd have to serve a state prison sentence, do you understand that?

[KATES]: Yes.

THE COURT: Has anybody made any promises to you to get you to take this plea other than the sentence promise that's been placed on the record by the People and your attorney?

[KATES]: No.

THE COURT: Anybody threatened you or forced you in any way to take this plea?

[KATES]: I think so, a little bit.

THE COURT: Tell me how.

[KATES]: Well, I just feel that - I don't quite know how to word it. I just feel that not being severed from somebody who looks like they're guilty and by strengthening the prosecution's case it was at the expense of my defense.

THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. The issue that you have is that a decision that the Court made at this point, you don't have to agree with every decision that I've made. The issue is are you going to give up your right to trial and plead guilty, and that's a balance that you have to make. You have to decide whether you believe it's in your best interest, and if you're doing that of your own free will, I'll allow your plea. If you feel you're being coerced into it and you're only doing it to avoid something and you're really not guilty of anything, then I want you to have a trial and I want you to sit, listen to the proof. We'll all listen to it. We'll see what the jury says, then I'd be free to sentence you to whatever is appropriate.

THE COURT: I can't tell you what's going to be said, how it's going to be received: I can tell you you have a right to a fair trial and I'll give you a fair trial. By pleading guilty you're giving up your right to that trial. The question now is has anybody forced you or threatened you to take a plea?

[KATES]: No, nobody in particular.

THE COURT: You just don't agree with all the decisions that are made?

[KATES]: I just don't see that being forced to trial with somebody who only in my opinion may look guilty, I just don't see about being forced to trial with them is fair. I don't see. Nothing fair about a trial like that.

THE

...