Miaram v. New York
| Decision Date | 29 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14-CV-00768 (ERK) |
| Parties | Narish Miaram, Petitioner, v. People of the State of New York, County of Queens, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Petitioner Narish Miaram (hereinafter "petitioner") was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery, three counts of second-degree robbery, fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, fourth-degree grand larceny, second-degree identity theft, and second-degree forgery after a jury trial. Petitioner was sentenced initially to 18 years of imprisonment: two consecutive terms for imprisonment of nine years for each first-degree robbery count to be served concurrently with three five-year concurrent imprisonment terms for his three second-degree robbery convictions and one-year concurrent terms of imprisonment for each remaining count to run concurrently with the robbery sentences. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to nine years. Although the Appellate Division did not explain the mechanics of reaching that result, I presume that it did so by running concurrently the two nine-year sentences for first-degree robbery that were originally imposed to run consecutively. People v. Mariam, 97 A.D.3d 606, 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012), leave to appeal denied People v. Mariam, 20 N.Y.1013 (2013). Proceeding pro se, petitioner filed this petition on May 14, 2014. By that point, he had served the full sentence imposed for all the offenses for which he was convicted except for first-degree robbery. Accordingly, to the extent that any of his claims relate to the offenses for which he has already served his sentence, habeas corpus relief is not available. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989) ().
Petitioner's convictions arise from three separate robberies of livery-cab drivers in Queens, which I describe below. I refer to each robbery by the victim's name.
On March 20, 2007, Richard Romero was driving a livery cab in Queens when he picked up two passengers, neither of whom was petitioner. Trial Tr. 280:6-20, ECF No. 7. The two individuals robbed Romero at knifepoint, taking his Citibank debit card and taxpayer identification. Id. at 284:4-5. Two days later, Romero's stolen debit card was used to purchase $436.35 of merchandise at Edge Sportswear. Id. at 292:5-7, 294:16-22. The owner of Edge Sportswear, Anwar Qaeder, was working that day and had observed three individuals using Romero's debit card. Id. at 315:17-25. At trial, however, Qaeder could not identify these individuals. Id. at 316:16-20. On March 24, Romero's debit card was used to buy $834.47 of merchandise at Radio Shack. Hr'g Tr. 37:20; Trial Tr. 295:22-296:4. Romero did not authorize either transaction. Trial Tr. 294:22, 296:4. Romero reported the robbery and Detectives Kevin O'Hea and Timothy Feehan were assigned to his case.
On March 29, Detective O'Hea was downloading surveillance tape at Edge Sportswear when a female employee of the store told him that the man depicted in the tape using Romero's debit card had returned to the store. Id. at 339:16-341:6. O'Hea confirmed this identification by comparing the surveillance tape to the live feed from the store and then called Detective Feehan to report to the store. Id. at 341:7-341:23. O'Hea and Feehan subsequently arrested petitioner aswell as his friend Mohammed Raffi at the store for using Romero's stolen debit card. Id. at 342:21-343:15.
After the officers transferred petitioner to their precinct, Feehan read petitioner his Miranda rights. Id. at 522:18-22. Petitioner then provided oral and written statements to Feehan. He confessed that, "[a]fter the robbery I went to the Edge Store with Mohammed and Kim and we used the [Citibank] card that Mohammed stole from the Spanish guy." Hr'g Tr. 45:8-10. Petitioner acknowledged that he "spoke with Citibank on the phone because I had his taxpayer I.D. and his Citibank card" and that he had "signed the man's name" on the Edge Sportswear receipt. Id. at 45:10-14. Petitioner also said that he "bought a boost computer and laptop" at Radio Shack using Romero's Citibank card. Id. at 47:3.
During the course of the foregoing interrogation, Feehan asked petitioner about the March 26, 2007 robbery of Sharjit Manhani, who also drove a livery vehicle. Id. at 63:10-64:1. Petitioner told Feehan that he, along with Mohammed Raffi and an unnamed man, had called a cab intending to rob it. Trial Tr. 528:10-12. According to petitioner, once Manhani began driving, Raffi told petitioner to "look out" and then Raffi "took out the knife and pulled the guy out of the driver's seat to the back by strangling him" before robbing him. Id. at 528:16-20. Manhani testified that the man holding the knife to his neck had said, "Give me the money or I am going to kill you." Id. at 468:11. While Manhani was being restrained, the other two men searched him and took his jacket, $400 in cash, five or six credit cards, and a $2,200 watch. Id. at 470:8-23. They then pushed Manhani from the car, and petitioner drove it away. Id. at 470:25, 529:2, 17-19. Police later recovered Manhani's car near his taxi company's office. Id. at 472:22-25.
Once petitioner confessed to helping rob Manhani, the detectives conducted a lineup at the police precinct, and Manhani identified petitioner as the man who had robbed him. Hr'g Tr. at 53:12-54:6; Trial Tr. 477:4-13. Following the confession and lineup, police officers transferred petitioner to Rikers Island. Trial Tr. 692:4-8. He was subsequently released on bail. Id. at 692:11-20.
Petitioner's release turned out to be a mistake because shortly after his release, petitioner robbed another livery-cab driver. Specifically, on June 26, 2007, Hardev Bawa was driving a livery cab when he was dispatched to pick up a man that Bawa, the victim, later identified as petitioner. Id. at 383:12-385:23. After Bawa began driving, petitioner directed him to park on 179th Place. Id. at 386:13-15. Once Bawa parked, petitioner asked Bawa for his phone several times to make calls. Id. at 387:24-388:2. Petitioner used Bawa's phone three times before placing it in his own pocket, taking Bawa's car keys, and saying, Id. at 388:5-8. While threatening Bawa, petitioner reached for his right-front pocket. Id. at 388:9-11. Bawa feared that petitioner possessed a gun and was going to shoot him. Id. at 389:2-3. Bawa gave petitioner his wallet, which had a credit card, id. at 390:6-12, and then fled the car, id. at 389:16. Police subsequently recovered Bawa's car. Id. at 397:4-400:11.
On June 27, Bawa spoke with Detective Everosky regarding the robbery. Id. at 574:24-25. On July 5, Bawa emailed Everosky a copy of a business card that Bawa had received from the owner of the taxi stand, who knew petitioner. Id. at 393:11-15, 575:19-22. The card had petitioner's name and photograph on it. Id. at 576:2-3. Four days later, petitioner was arrested for the Bawa robbery. Id. at 578:4-16. While searching petitioner, police found Bawa's phone. Id. at 578:21-579:2. After police officers gave petitioner his Miranda warnings, id. at 580:3-583:20, petitioner told police that Bawa and he had argued over cab fare and that he had then taken Bawa's car, id. at 584:1-9. Police later placed petitioner in a lineup, and Bawa identified petitioner as the man who had robbed him. Hr'g Tr. 16:16-19, Trial Tr. 396:15-18.
Petitioner first argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to find him guilty of first-degree robbery of livery cab driver Hardev Bawa, Count 16 of the indictment. Pet. 6, ECF No. 1. Evidence is legally sufficient if a rational jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed all the essential elements of the crime. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The Appellate Division held on direct review that the prosecution had met its burden under the legal sufficiency standard, and it also held that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mariam, 97 A.D.3d at 606; see People v. Cahill, 2 N.Y.3d 14, 58 (2003) (). On habeas review, a Cavazos v. Smith, 132 S. Ct. 2, 4 (2011) (per curiam). A petitioner faces a high burden to succeed on this claim when "the deference to the state court decisions required by § 2254(d) is applied to the state court's already deferential review" of the evidence. Id. at 6.
A defendant commits first-degree robbery in New York by (1) forcibly stealing property and (2) in the course of fleeing, the defendant or another participant displays what appears to be a firearm. N.Y. Penal Law § 160.15(4). "[T]he display requirement has been construed broadly tocover a wide range of actions which might reasonably create the impression in the mind of the victim that the robber is armed with a firearm." People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 220-21 (1989); see also People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d 613, 613-14 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1990) ().
The facts of this case are similar to those in Haney. Bawa testified that...
To continue reading
Request your trial