Miller v. Kirkpatrick
| Decision Date | 12 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 9:16-cv-00301-JKS,9:16-cv-00301-JKS |
| Parties | DARRIN MILLER, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Darrin Miller, a New York state prisoner now represented by counsel, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Miller is in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility. Respondent has answered the Petition, and Miller has not replied.
On September 10, 2010, Miller was charged with second-degree attempted murder (Count 1), first-degree criminal use of a firearm (Count 2), two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Counts 3, 4), first degree reckless endangerment (Count 5), second-degree menacing (Count 6), and three misdemeanor violations. The charges stemmed from a September 2010 shooting outside of a nightclub.
Prior to trial, the court held a Sandoval1 hearing to address whether the prosecution could question Miller, in the event he testified, about a prior conviction for second-degree attempted robbery where Miller had struck the victim with a semi-automatic pistol and stolen $150 from her. The court ruled that the People were permitted to ask Miller if he had previously been convicted of a felony, but were not able to inquire as to the nature of the conviction or the underlying facts.
On February 22, 2011, Miller proceeded to a jury trial. During that trial, the court indicated that it had received notes from Juror 6 and Juror 7. Juror 6's note indicated that a female observer she believed was Miller's girlfriend "made comments to the jurors in the courtroom and in the hallway when [the jury left] at night." When individually questioned by the court, Juror 6 stated that the observer made comments while court was in session and in reaction to testimony to the effect that the proceedings were a joke, and made comments that the jury was stupid when the jury left at night. Juror 6 stated that the outbursts would have no effect on her ability to decide the case based solely on the evidence and that she could be fair and impartial. Juror 7 clarified that she had not personally heard any comments by the woman and had only overhead Juror 6 reporting the incidents to court staff without specifics. She likewise assured the court that she could decide the case based solely upon the evidence. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found Miller guilty of Count 4 of the indictment, second-degreecriminal possession of a weapon, but announced that it was deadlocked as to the other felony charges.
The People elected to try Miller a second time. Prior to that trial, Miller requested that the court address his prior conviction. At that time, the court was in possession of the People's prior Sandoval proffer, but neither party nor the court had a copy of the court's previous oral ruling or had made notation of that ruling. Looking at the proffer again, the court ruled that the People could inquire into the conviction by asking whether Miller had been convicted of second-degree robbery and whether he had forcibly stolen money from another person. The court ruled, however, that the prosecution could not mention the presence of a pistol, which it reasoned would be prejudicial to Miller. The People also moved prior to trial to admit Miller's testimony from the first trial. Over Miller's objection, the court ruled that the prosecution could read the entirety of Miller's testimony from the first trial into evidence in the second.
At trial, the two members of the nightclub's security staff testified for the People that they observed Miller firing multiple shots from a handgun at a vehicle as it sped out of a parking lot. The People also called the four police officers who were present when the shooting broke out, as well as several others who arrived later to collect evidence, and a forensic scientist and firearm expert. The prosecution also entered into evidence the recording of Miller's interview with law enforcement, given after receiving Miranda warnings, and Miller's previous testimony from the first trial was read into evidence. Miller also testified in his own defense that a friend of his was being attacked outside the nightclub and he went to assist that friend, which included wrestling a gun from one individual. Miller stated that shots were fired at him by a person who left the fight and got into the car. Miller acknowledged later shooting at the car, but claimed thathe was only trying to scare the car away. In the first trial, but not the second, Miller testified that his brother had been shot and that he believed that one of the individuals who had entered the car was his brother's shooter.
At the end of the third day of the second trial, the county court instructed the jury that they were not to use the internet to research anything about the trial. At the conclusion of the second trial, the jury found Miller guilty of second-degree attempted murder and first-degree criminal use of a firearm (Counts 1, 2). The court subsequently sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms with an aggregate maximum of 19 years plus post-release supervision.
Through counsel, Miller appealed his conviction, arguing that: 1) the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions for attempted murder and criminal use of a firearm, and those guilty verdicts were against the weight of the evidence; 2) the trial court should have questioned each juror during the first trial as to whether the female observer's conduct would have an impact on his or her ability to render an impartial verdict; 3) the trial court erred in admitting in the second trial Miller's testimony from the first trial; 4) the county court's failure to timely admonish the jury about the prohibition against electronic research deprived Miller of a fair trial; 5) the trial court abused its discretion during the second trial by failing to adhere to its Sandoval ruling from the first trial; and 6) the county court improperly denied Miller's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the grand jury proceedings were defective. On June 12, 2014, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court issued a reasoned opinion unanimously affirming the judgment against Miller in its entirety. People v. Miller, 987 N.Y.S.2d 501, 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Miller sought leave to appeal to the New York Courtof Appeals, which was summarily denied on December 22, 2014. People v. Miller, 25 N.E.3d 350, 350 (N.Y. 2014). His conviction became final 90 days later, on March 22, 2015, the conclusion of the period during which Miller could have sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. See Williams v. Artuz, 237 F.3d 147, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2001).
Miller then timely filed a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to this Court on March 10, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). After Respondent answered the Petition, Miller retained counsel. Counsel moved for permission to file a memorandum of law to "supplement" Miller's pro se Petition. Docket Nos. 13. This Court, by an earlier-assigned magistrate judge, granted the request, but noted that "this Court will not consider new claims or theories of relief raised in the memorandum of law that were not raised in the original habeas petition" unless counsel moved for, and was granted, leave to amend the Petition. Docket No. 14. Miller filed the counseled memorandum of law in support of the Petition and did not otherwise move to amend the Petition. Docket No. 15. By letter brief, Respondent subsequently opposed the counseled memorandum to the extent it sought to add claims not raised in the Petition. Briefing for this case is now complete and before the undersigned judge for disposition.
In his pro se Petition before this Court, Miller argues that his conviction was unconstitutional because: 1) his convictions for attempted murder and criminal use of a firearm were against the weight of the evidence and unsupported by legally sufficient evidence; 2) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence in the second trial Miller's testimony from his first trial; 3) the trial court did not timely admonish the jury to refrain from researching Miller's caseon the internet; and 4) the trial court erred in the second trial by modifying its Sandoval ruling from the first trial. In the counseled memorandum of law in support of the Petition, Miller additionally avers that: 1) the trial court should have individually questioned each juror at Miller's first trial regarding the comments of Miller's girlfriend; and 2) the county court should have granted Miller's motion to dismiss the indictment because the grand jury proceedings were defective.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this Court cannot grant relief unless the decision of the state court was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," § 2254(d)(1), or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," § 2254(d)(2). A state-court decision is contrary to federal law if the state court applies a rule that contradicts controlling Supreme Court authority or "if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision" of the Supreme Court, but nevertheless arrives at a different result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 (2000).
To the extent that the Petition raises issues of the proper application of state law, they are beyond the purview of this Court in a federal habeas proceeding. See Swarthout v. C...
To continue reading
Request your trial