Rodriguez v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 11 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | 9:16-CV-1037 |
| Parties | JOSE A. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. THOMAS GRIFFIN, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
DENNIS A. RAMBAUD, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
Pro se petitioner Jose Rodriguez ("Rodriguez" or "petitioner") seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 2, Petition ("Pet.").1
On December 23, 2016, Rodriguez filed a motion to stay his habeas petition. Dkt. No. 17. In that filing, petitioner signaled his intent to raise additional habeas claims. RespondentThomas Griffin ("Griffin" or "respondent") opposed the motion to stay. Dkt. No. 19. Upon review, the Court denied petitioner's motion to stay and ordered petitioner to file a motion to amend if he wanted to add new claims to his pending habeas petition. Dkt. No. 20.
On March 6, 2017, in accordance with the Court's direction, Rodriguez filed a motion to amend his habeas petition. Dkt. No. 26. Petitioner also filed a request to stay the habeas proceeding while his writ of error coram nobis was pending in state court. Dkt. No. 27. Respondent did not oppose either motion. Dkt. No. 28.
On March 12, 2018, before the Court acted on either the motion to amend or the motion to stay, Rodriguez filed a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 49. In the motion to compel, petitioner seeks the production of certain documents related to the police investigation, namely search warrant applications, search warrants, and premises records of the crime scenes. Dkt. No. 49 at 1.
On April 5, 2017, the Court granted Rodriguez's motions to amend and to stay the proceedings. Dkt. No. 30. Petitioner duly filed his amended petition on May 1, 2017. Dkt. No. 31, Amended Petition ("Am. Pet.").
Thereafter, Rodriguez complied with the Court's order to provide status reports on his state court proceedings and, on June 28, 2017, petitioner informed the Court that his state court remedies had been exhausted. Dkt. No. 35. In accordance with that development, the Court directed a response to the amended petition. Id.
Respondent has filed an opposition to Rodriguez's amended petition. Dkt. No. 42, Respondent's Answer ("Ans."); Dkt. No. 42-1, Respondent's Memorandum of Law (R. Memo."); Dkt. Nos. 43-43-5, State Court Records ("SCR"); Dkt. Nos. 43-6-43-9, Transcripts ("T."). Petitioner has filed a reply. Dkt. No. 48, Traverse.
For the reasons that follow, Rodriguez's habeas petition and motion to compel are both denied and the petition is dismissed.
The basic facts underlying Rodriguez's criminal conviction are not in dispute. As stated by the Appellate Division:
People v. Rodriguez, 995 N.Y.S.2d 785, 787-89 (3rd Dep't 2014).
On December 17, 2010, Rodriguez was arraigned in Otsego County Court. SCR 495-501. During the arraignment, the court briefly summarized the charges in the indictmentand informed petitioner he had a right to be represented, that counsel could be appointed if he did not have the resources to retain an attorney, and that the proceedings could be adjourned in order for petitioner to secure counsel. SCR 496-97.
In response, Rodriguez indicated on the record that he wanted an attorney but did not have the means to retain one. SCR 497. The County Court stated it would assign petitioner counsel, entered a plea of not guilty on petitioner's behalf, and adjourned the matter to allow petitioner time to meet with his soon-to-be court-appointed attorney. SCR 497-98.
At that time, the People made an application to remand Rodriguez without bail given his risk of flight. SCR 498-99. Petitioner reserved his right to object until he was represented by counsel. SCR 499. Petitioner was remanded without bail pending further proceedings, which were then re-scheduled for January 14, 2011. SCR. 499-500.
On January 14, 2011, Rodriguez was arraigned. Dkt. No. 43-6 at 8-13. Petitioner's court-assigned counsel appeared and represented petitioner at the proceeding . Id. at 9-10. However, by that time petitioner had also retained his own attorney, who later served as petitioner's trial counsel. Id.
Based upon speculation that the People "may introduce . . . recorded conversations," Rodriguez's retained counsel made a pre-trial motion for an audibility hearing. SCR 138. In opposition, the People indicated they had "no[ ] inten[tion of] introduc[ing] any recordings on their direct case." SCR 142. The trial court denied petitioner's motion based on the People's representation. SCR 153. The court concluded that any mention of the tapes on the People's direct case would be prohibited. Id.
Prior to jury selection, Rodriguez's counsel moved to dismiss based on the composition of the jury panel. T. 1-8. Petitioner's counsel also moved to change venue given the press attention surrounding petitioner's case. Id. The trial court denied both motions. As to venue, the trial court found it had no authority to grant the application—such applications must be submitted in writing directly to the appropriate appellate division. T. 9. As to the jury panel's composition, the trial court concluded petitioner failed "to show facts that demonstrate[d] . . . there[ was] . . . a substantial deviation from the requirement[s] of the Judiciary Law." T. 9.
During jury selection, Rodriguez's trial counsel utilized a jury expert. T. 47. After the jury was selected, the trial court asked the People and petitioner's trial counsel to hand in the jury questionnaires. T. 345-46, 356. Petitioner's trial counsel did not object to returning these questionnaires. At that time, petitioner's trial counsel also provided the court with notes, though it is unclear from the record whether those notes came from the petitioner, the jury expert, or possibly both. T. 357-360.
The People relied on the testimony of multiple confidential informants and other cooperating witnesses who made heroin purchases from Rodriguez's dealers in and around Oneonta. T. 694. Several of those dealers agreed to cooperate in the instant case for favorable treatment in their own pending criminal cases. Id.
One of the People's cooperating witnesses was Rebecca Kennedy. T. 691. Kennedy was incarcerated in the Lakeview Shock Program at the time of the trial. T. 691-92. Kennedy met Rodriguez in 2007 when she began buying heroin from him and his friends. T. 695-97. She would call petitioner on a cell phone, tell him what she wanted, and petitionerwould direct her to someone in Oneonta that had drugs available. T. 698.
In 2009, Kennedy began working for Rodriguez. T. 698-99. Petitioner would call Kennedy and direct her to where someone was seeking heroin. T. 699. Kennedy was compensated for this work with drugs. Id. Kennedy also traveled to New York City to drop off cash - between $2,000 and $5,000 - and pick up bundles of heroin - usually twenty to thirty bundles per trip. T. 700-03. Kennedy estimates she completed this exchange approximately forty to fifty times. T. 700.
When she was in Oneonta, Kennedy estimated that she was personally selling an average of 80 to 100 bags of heroin per day, at $20 per bag. T. 704-05. She had between twenty and thirty regular customers in Oneonta, including confidential informants Chancy Couse, Mark Clark, and Justin Gage. T. 708-09. Kennedy would wire the money she received from the sales, via Western Union at various convenience and drug stores, to different names and addresses provided to her by Rodriguez. T. 705-06. Kennedy testified that every week or two she would wire one or two thousand dollars per petitioner's directions. Id.
On September 2, 2009, Kennedy sold five bags of heroin to confidential informant ("CI") Chancy Couse. T. 745-46, 755-61. CI Couse initiated the sale with a call to CI Mark Clark, the call went to voicemail, and then Kennedy returned the call and provided CI Couse with a location to receive the heroin. T. 755-56. CI Couse was given $100 for the buy, fitted with a listening device, and followed by police to the prearranged site. T. 756-58. The transaction was monitored: CI Couse was recorded saying "Here's the money" and Kennedy then exchanged five bags of heroin for the $100. T. 758. CI Couse provided the drugs to the police, which later tested positive for...
To continue reading
Request your trial