Mitchell v. Superintendent
| Decision Date | 16 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-1189JLS(F) |
| Parties | MILES S. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
MILES S. MITCHELL, PRO SE
LETICIA A. JAMES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW YORK ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
MATTHEW B. KELLER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OF COUNSEL
DECISION AND ORDER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), this case was referred to the undersigned by Honorable John L. Sinatra Jr., on December 23, 2020, for all pretrial matters necessary for a determination of the factual and legal issues presented herein. The matter is presently before the court on Petitioner's motion filed May 23, 2022, seeking to file an amended petition asserting two additional grounds on which habeas relief is requested (Dkt. 35).[1]
On September 20, 2020, Petitioner Miles Mitchell, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of his October 29, 2013 conviction by jury in New York Supreme Court, Monroe County (“trial court”), for two counts of second-degree murder (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25[1], [3]), one count of attempted first-degree robbery (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[4]), one count of attempted second-degree robbery (N.Y. Penal Law § 110.00, 160.10[1]), and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.03[1](B)). In connection with the conviction, Petitioner was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an aggregated prison term of 25 years to life. Petitioner appealed the conviction to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept. (“Appellate Division”), which, on November 10, 2016, reserved decision on the appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to hold a hearing pursuant to People v. Huntley, 204 N.E.2d 179 (N.Y.1965) (“Huntley hearing”), to determine whether Petitioner's pre-arrest inculpatory statements, which were admitted against Petitioner at trial, were voluntarily made and complied with Petitioner's right to the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (“Miranda”). People v. Mitchell, 41 N.Y.S.3d 805 (4th Dept. 2016). Upon remand, the trial court held the Huntley hearing, and on May 24, 2017, issued a decision (Dkt. 14-2 at 293-304) (“Huntley Decision”), concluding Petitioner's statements were voluntarily made, were not in violation of Miranda, and should not be suppressed. Petitioner filed a supplemental appeal challenging the Huntley Decision with the Appellate Division, Dkt. 14-2 at 271-89), which, on March 15, 2019, affirmed both the trial court's denial of suppression at the Huntley hearing, and Petitioner's conviction. People v. Mitchell, 94 N.Y.S.3d 494 (4th Dept. 2019). Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied on June 18, 2019. People v. Mitchell, 129 N.E.3d 330 (N.Y. 2019).
On August 14, 2020, Petitioner filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of New York, the instant petition seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting four grounds for habeas relief including (1) the trial court improperly refused to conduct, pretrial, a Huntley hearing (“First Ground”); (2) the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's for cause challenges to potential jurors (“Second Ground”); (3) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence a prior bad act (“Third Ground”); and (4) Petitioner's murder conviction was against the weight of the evidence (“Fourth Ground”). Because Petitioner's conviction and sentence were imposed in New York Supreme Court, Monroe County, on September 2, 2020, the matter was transferred from the Northern District of New York to this court as the proper forum.
On October 13, 2020, Petitioner filed in the trial court a motion pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10 (“§ 440 motion”) seeking to vacate his conviction based on a denial of due process because the Huntley hearing was not held until after the trial. See Dkt. 14-2 at 333-44.[2]On November 12, 2020, Petitioner filed in the trial court an addendum to the § 440 motion asserting Barback was acting as an agent of the police when Petitioner made incriminating statements which were recorded without Petitioner's knowledge or consent in violation of Miranda. See Dkt. 14-2 at 345-50.
On December 18, 2020, Respondent filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 13) (“Respondent's Memorandum”), and an answer to the Petition (Dkt. 14) (“Answer”), attaching as exhibits the State Court Records (Dkts. 14-1 through 14-3). On December 31, 2020, the trial court denied Petitioner's § 440 motion; Petitioner did not appeal the denial of his § 440 motion.
On March 22, 2021, Petitioner moved to file an amended petition (Dkt. 26) (“motion to amend”), and to stay the proceedings (Dkt. 27) (“motion to stay”). In a Decision and Order filed March 23, 2022 (Dkt. 33) (“D&O”), the undersigned denied the motion to amend because Petitioner failed to attach a copy of the proposed amended petition and it was not possible to discern the new grounds Petitioner sought to assert in an amended petition. D&O at 4-5. The motion to stay, requesting the Petition be held in abeyance while Petitioner filed a second § 440 motion asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel was also denied because Petitioner failed to demonstrate the required good cause for failing to timely exhaust such claims, nor to sufficiently describe the putative claims to permit the court to determine whether such claims are potentially meritorious. Id. at 5-7.
On May 23, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant motion seeking to amend the Petition to assert two additional grounds for habeas relief (Dkt. 35) (“Petitioner's Motion”), including that (1) certain statements of Petitioner should have been suppressed because they were made to an agent of the police without benefit of the Miranda warnings, and were involuntary (“first proposed ground”), and (2) the appellate court improperly denied the suppression of an audiorecording made, without Petitioner's knowledge or consent, to the same agent of the police (“second proposed ground”) (together, “proposed grounds”). Although Respondent was given until June 8, 2022 to file a response (Dkt. 36), later extended, at Respondent's request, to June 24, 2022 (Dkt. 38), to date, Respondent has not filed any response. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary.
Based on the following Petitioner's Motion DENIED; the Petition should be DISMISSED.
FACTS[3]
In the early hours of August 25, 2012, Petitioner Miles S. Mitchell (“Petitioner” or “Mitchell”), was with James Hillyard, Jr. (“Hillyard” or “JD”)), and Terrell Cooper (“Cooper” or “Rel”) (together, “co-defendants”), at Louie's Cordial Lounge, a bar (“Cordial” or “the bar”), in Rochester, New York. Trial Tr.[4]555-63, 660. Also at the bar were Joshua Groat (“Groat” or “the victim”), Groat's best friend Jacob Trim (“Trim”), and Jacob Hunter (“Hunter”). Trial Tr. at 556-57. Trim, Groat, and Hunter had driven to the bar in Trim's vehicle, a 2006 Dodge Charger with a custom-detailed paint job depicting the fictional comicbook hero Batman and on the driver's side and the Joker on the passenger side (“the Batman car”). Trial Tr. at 556-57, 587-88, 591. At that time, Trim had been involved for three months in a sexual relationship with one Danielle Barback (“Barback”), who was Petitioner's ex-girlfriend and the mother of Petitioner's children. Trial Tr. at 571. Around 2:00 A.M., Trim walked outside the bar where he observed Groat standing with his back to the bar, confronted by a mixed-race male in a blue hooded sweatshirt or “hoodie,” later identified as Petitioner, and a white male in a black shirt, later identified as Hillyard. Petitioner pulled out a handgun and demanded money from Groat, and Trim reacted by pulling on Petitioner's hoodie and punching Petitioner. Id. at 558-67, 85. During the ensuing struggle, the handgun discharged and Trim ran up the street, while Groat ran in the opposite direction with Petitioner, Hillyard and Cooper (“the assailants”) in pursuit. Id. at 568-69.
At the same time, one William Carter (“Carter”) was working at a nearby used car lot (“used car lot”), located around the corner from the bar, and observed the assailants chase Groat into the used car lot where the men began beating Groat near a white truck. 534-36. While the assailants were beating Groat, Carter heard two or three gunshots near the white truck. Trial Tr. at 540-41. When Carter screamed at the assailants, they fled and Groat tried to get up from the ground, but “made a sound” and collapsed, at which point Carter called 911. Id. at 537-38, 550. Video surveillance from the used car lot shows the assailants chasing Groat into the used car lot, with Hillyard pointing something toward Groat. Id. at 538-40. Although the video surveillance recording is not clear, motion is visible in the video's upper-left portion, along with Petitioner, Hillyard, and Cooper fleeing the scene. Id.
Officers from the Rochester Police Department (“RPD”) responded to Carter's 911 call with RPD Officer Kevin Smith (“Smith”) the first to arrive at the used car lot where Smith observed Groat lying face down between two vehicles, with Groat's boots and some loose cash located nearby on the ground. Trial Tr. at 380, 386. Attempts by first responders to revive Groat were unsuccessful. Id. at 570. Groat's cause of death was determined by the medical examiner to be a gunshot wound to his torso. Id. at 924. The medical examiner also observed Groat had a broken nose, abrasions on...
To continue reading
Request your trial