Moronta v. Rich
| Decision Date | 03 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21 Civ. 04249 (NSR)(JCM) |
| Parties | BERINZON MORONTA, Petitioner, v. JOHN RICH, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Berinzon Moronta (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 12, 2021 (“Petition”). (Docket No. 1). On July 8, 2021, Respondent John Rich (“Respondent”) opposed the Petition. (Docket Nos. 15-16). Petitioner replied to Respondent's opposition on August 4, 2021. (Docket No 24; see also Docket No. 28). For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend that the Petition be denied in its entirety.
Petitioner's convictions arise out of an incident that occurred on the evening of October 9, 2015 at Barnhart Park in Sleepy Hollow, New York. (Docket No. 17 at 17). At the time of the incident, Petitioner was sixteen years old. (Docket Nos. 16-6 at 6; 17-2 at 8; 27 at 1). Petitioner arrived at the park armed with a folding knife and a group of friends, some of whom were also armed with a baseball bat and an empty glass bottle. (Docket No. 16-6 at 6). At approximately 11:12 p.m., Petitioner killed Tajh Robinson (“Robinson”) by stabbing Robinson fourteen times. (Docket Nos. 16-2 at 4; 17 at 17; 27 at 4-5). Petitioner's stabs caused seven cuts and seven wounds. (Docket Nos. 17 at 6-7; 27 at 4). Robinson was unarmed. (Docket Nos. 16 at 3; 17-2 at 4). At the time, Robinson was seventeen years old. (Docket Nos. 16-6 at 6; 17-1 at 6).
Thereafter, Petitioner fled to a friend's apartment in Yonkers, New York, where he used bleach to clean Robinson's blood off of the knife and then concealed the knife in a closet. (Docket Nos. 16-6 at 6-7; 27 at 4). Law enforcement recovered the knife the following day. (Docket Nos. 16-6 at 7; 27 at 4).
On December 3, 2015, Petitioner was indicted for second-degree murder under New York Penal Law § 125.25(1); fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon under New York Penal Law § 265.01(2); and tampering with physical evidence under New York Penal Law § 215.40(2).[1](Docket No. 16-1).
On July 29, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty to a reduced charge of first-degree manslaughter under New York Penal Law § 125.20(1) before the Honorable Barry E. Warhit in the Supreme Court[2]of the State of New York, County of Westchester (“Supreme Court”). (Docket No. 17 at 2-3, 10). The charge replaced the first count for murder in the original indictment. (See id. at 23; Docket No. 16-1 at 1). In exchange for the plea, the People agreed to a sentence of twenty years in prison followed by five years of post-release supervision. (Docket No. 17 at 2). The plea was “condition[ed]” on (1) a “waive[r]” of Petitioner's appellate rights “to the extent permitted by law;” and (2) Petitioner's nonreceipt of youthful offender treatment. (See id. at 3, 67, 13-14).
After putting these terms on the record, the court explained that the appellate waiver “basically mean[t] that with very narrow exceptions, . . . this conviction and sentence will stand without Appellate review.” (Id. at 14). The court also noted that “[w]ith 14 injuries to the victim here, . . . [the court] wouldn't be offering [Petitioner] youthful offender if [the crime] was only charged as a Manslaughter; in other words, . . . [the court] [did not] believe [Petitioner] [would] be worthy of that under the[] circumstances.” (Id. at 6-7). Petitioner indicated that he understood these terms and that the court “wouldn't be offering [youthful offender treatment] even if it could.” (Id. at 6-7, 14).
Petitioner was represented by Alberto E. Banks, Esq. (Id. at 1). Mr. Banks told the court that he had discussed the terms of the plea, including Petitioner's waiver of his appellate rights, with both Petitioner and his family. (Id. at 2-3). Petitioner concurred that he had discussed the terms of the plea with Mr. Banks and that he was satisfied with Mr. Banks's representation. (Id. at 5-6). Petitioner further asserted that he had been given sufficient time to discuss the waiver of his appellate rights with Mr. Banks, and that he was waiving them freely and voluntarily. (Id. at 14-15). Petitioner then concurred that “on or about October 9, 2015” at Barnhart Park in Sleepy Hollow, “with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, . . . [he] cause[d] the death of such person by inflicting 14 knife wounds to that person, that person being Tahj Robinson.” (Id. at 17).
The Westchester County Department of Probation issued a Presentence Investigation Report (the “Presentence Report”) on August 12, 2016. (Docket No. 27).[3]The Presentence Report noted that according to Petitioner, before the incident, Robinson had posted threats to “slash” and “stab” him on social media and they had a “small physical altercation.” (Docket Nos. 16-3 at 8; 27 at 5). Robinson then contacted Petitioner through a friend and arranged to meet for a fight. (Docket Nos. 16-3 at 8; 27 at 5). Because he felt threatened, Petitioner took a knife from his friend's car before entering the park. (Docket Nos. 16-3 at 8; 27 at 5). Petitioner used the knife in the midst of the fight when he saw Robinson reach for something and feared for his life. (Docket Nos. 16-12 at 20; 27 at 5). However, Petitioner did not think his stabs would penetrate Robinson because Robinson was wearing heavy clothing. (Docket Nos. 16-12 at 20; 27 at 5). The Presentence Report also documented that Petitioner had recently graduated from Sleepy Hollow High School. (Docket Nos. 27 at 7; see also Docket Nos. 4 at 24; 16-2 at 11). He maintained steady employment at Champs, a sneaker store, until he was arrested. (Docket Nos. 4 at 24; 27 at 7).
On September 14, 2016, Justice Warhit sentenced Petitioner to twenty years in prison followed by five years of post-release supervision. (Docket No. 17-1). In doing so, Justice Warhit confirmed that Petitioner “st[ood] by [his] plea.” (Id. at 4). Petitioner also “acknowledge[d]” that he committed first-degree manslaughter without “legal justification, meaning self-defense was not a factor.” (Id.). Neither Justice Warhit, nor any of the parties, discussed the issue of whether Petitioner should be considered a youthful offender.
On September 18, 2017, Petitioner moved pro se in the Supreme Court to set aside his sentence pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. § 440.20 (the “440.20 Motion”). (Docket No. 16-2). Petitioner argued that his sentence was illegal because, even though he was eligible for youthful offender treatment, the sentencing court failed to consider such treatment and place its reasons for not awarding it on the record, as required by N.Y.C.P.L. § 720.10(1)-(2) and New York caselaw. (Id.at 8-12).
According to Petitioner, the court's failure to put such reasoning on the record also violated his “right to due process.” (Id. at 12).
Petitioner further argued that the court should have considered the following mitigating circumstances in making this determination: (1) prior to the incident, Petitioner and Robinson had a physical encounter; (2) prior to the incident, Robinson made a threatening video of himself stating, “Im'a [sic] fuck you up, Im'a [sic] fucking kill you, see you later Barry;” (3) prior to the incident, Robinson verbally attacked Petitioner on Facebook and Twitter, stating, “I wanna [sic] fight this nigga [sic] like I am fuckin dyin rn [sic],” and (4) Petitioner had no prior criminal record, nor any prior acts of violence; and (5) the Presentence Report's recommendations did not foreclose the possibility of youthful offender treatment. (Id. at 9-10). Petitioner contended that the court should have also considered Petitioner's cooperation with authorities, attitude towards society, respect for the law, prospects for rehabilitation and hope for a future constructive life. (Id. at 10). He further averred that the court improperly failed to consider his academic accomplishments. (Id. at 11-12). Petitioner also argued that the court failed to perform its judicial duties “impartially or diligently” and requested an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 12-14).
The People opposed the 440.20 Motion on November 15, 2017. (Docket No. 16-3). However, by letter to the sentencing court on January 19, 2018, the People conceded that the sentencing proceeding was defective because the court did not state on the record its reasons for denying youthful offender treatment. (Docket No. 16-4). The People advised that Petitioner had raised this issue on direct appeal, and their Appeals Bureau had submitted a response agreeing that the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. (Id.; see also Docket No. 16-6). Therefore, the People believed the 440.20 Motion was moot. (Docket No. 16-4).
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of his conviction on November 28 2016.[4] (Docket No. 15 at 4). Through counsel,[5]Petitioner filed an appellate brief on November 9, 2017 to the New York State Appellate Division for the Second Department (“Appellate Division”) raising the following two grounds for relief: (1) the trial court failed to make a proper finding as to youthful offender treatment; and (2) the sentence was excessive. (Docket No. 16-5 at 8-17). Petitioner echoed the mitigation arguments in his 440.20 Motion, quoting from the Presentence Report as support.[6] (Id. at 7, 11-12). He also argued that consideration of youthful offender...
To continue reading
Request your trial