Rodriguez v. Miller
| Decision Date | 30 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-2015 (KAM)(LB) |
| Parties | RONNY RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Pro se petitioner Ronny Rodriguez ("Rodriguez" or "petitioner") brings the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is being held in state custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Pet.").) Petitioner's claims arise from a judgment of conviction following a bench trial in the Supreme Court of New York State, Queens County, on charges of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and menacing in the second degree. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner was sentenced to five years in state prison for robbery in the first degree, three and a half years for robbery in the second decree, and one year for menacing, all to run concurrently, and to 5 years of post-release supervision. (Id.)
For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied.
On the night of March 13, 2013, Aaron Ortiz ("Ortiz" or "complainant") was returning from work to his home in Queens when he stopped at a bodega to buy groceries. (ECF No. 13-2, State Court Bench Trial Transcripts ("Tr.") 44, 46-47.1) While at the bodega, Ortiz saw petitioner, whom he had seen there several times before. (Tr. 48-49.) Ortiz did not know petitioner's name and never learned his name during the course of those interactions. (Tr. 40, 50.)
Petitioner asked Ortiz if he would lend petitioner $380, but Ortiz responded that he could not lend petitioner the money because he did not know petitioner well and did not have that amount of money with him regardless. (Tr. 55-57.) Petitioner said he would give Ortiz a cell phone as collateral in exchange for the money. (Id.) Ortiz agreed to the exchange, and petitioner gave Ortiz a phone number to call when Ortiz was ready to provide the money. (Id. at 57.) Ortiz dialed the number and let the phone ring once before he left petitioner. (Id.)
Less than 30 minutes later, after retrieving the money, Ortiz called the number petitioner gave him, but there was no answer and heard the voicemail message of someone called "Giovanni Rodriguez." (Tr. 58.) When Ortiz called a second time, petitioner answered and Ortiz told him that he had $300. (Tr. 59.) Petitioner and Ortiz agreed to meet at the bodega. (Tr. 59-60.) But a block and a half before Ortiz got to the bodega, petitioner stopped him in the middle of the block. (Tr. 60, 64-65.) Petitioner asked Ortiz if he had the money and Ortiz responded that he did. (Tr. 64-65.) Ortiz then asked petitioner if he had the phone. (Tr. 64-65.)
Ortiz testified that petitioner said he was not going to give Ortiz the phone, at which point someone approached Ortiz from behind and pressed something against his back. (Tr. 65-66.) Petitioner pulled out a gun, placed it to Ortiz's chest, and demanded the money. (Tr. 64-66.) Ortiz stated that he was "afraid" and "in shock" when the person appeared behind him and "terrified" when the petitioner pulled out a gun. (Tr. 65.) Petitioner took the $300 from Ortiz's hand and told Ortiz he would kill him if Ortiz called the police or told anyone. (Tr. 67.) The person behind Ortiz searched Ortiz's pockets and took the money that Ortiz had in them. (Tr. 66-67.)
Ortiz then went home and waited about twenty minutes before he called the police. (Tr. 67.) Ortiz told the policehe had been robbed. (Tr. 68.) Ortiz gave Detective Bruce Koch a description of the robber and reported the name he had heard on the voicemail message, "Giovanni Rodriguez." (Tr. 68, 108.) Ortiz also gave Detective Koch the phone number he was given by the robber. (Tr. 109, 181-82.)
During the trial, Detective Koch explained that he did not call the phone number Ortiz gave him, as he did not want to alert the robber to the police investigation. (Tr. 110.) Although he did not call the number, Detective Koch used it to conduct an investigation. (Tr. 114.) The trial judge did not permit Detective Koch to testify as to what the phone number was during his direct testimony. (Tr. 111.)
Petitioner testified that he called the police in January 2013 after he was locked out of the apartment he had been staying in. (Tr. 154.) Petitioner further testified that he called the police from a cell phone regarding that incident, but did not remember the phone number he called from. (Tr. 154-55.) He also claimed that he did not know whether he personally owned a cell phone in January 2013, when he called the police, or in March 2013, when the robbery occurred. (Tr. 157.)
When the people recalled Detective Koch as a rebuttal witness, he explained that he had asked the Realtime Crime Center to run the number Ortiz had received from the robber through a database to see whether the number was attached to anyother police department paperwork. (Tr. 182-83.) The database search led to a record of a 911 call placed by the petitioner, which was reflected in a sprint report (a police record that provides data on, among other things, 911 calls). (Tr. 183-85; see also ECF No. 13-1, State Court Record ("SR") 127-28.) A sprint report of a 911 call is created by the call operator, who transcribes what is being reported by the 911 caller. (See Tr. 186.) Based on the sprint report, the number given to Ortiz by the robber, which Ortiz reported to Detective Koch, was the same number petitioner used to call 911 in January 2013, and the sprint report listed petitioner's name. (Tr. 188.)
After reviewing the evidence, the court determined that the People had established the elements for convictions of first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, and menacing (tr. 264) and that petitioner committed those crimes (tr. 264-65). On March 13, 2015, the court sentenced petitioner to five years in prison for the first-degree robbery conviction, three and a half years in prison for the second-degree robbery conviction, and one year in prison for the menacing conviction. (Tr. 357.) Petitioner was also sentenced to a five-year term of post-release supervision. (Id.)
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department("Appellate Division"). In his appeal, petitioner argued that: (1) the evidence was legally insufficient to convict and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (ECF No. 13-2, SR at 23-29); (2) the court's admission of Detective Koch's rebuttal testimony regarding petitioner's cell phone deprived petitioner of a fair trial (id. at 29-35); (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to admission of the 911 sprint report or the prosecutor's reference to the sprint report during his summation (id. at 36-41); and (4) the trial court improperly interfered with defense counsel's summation (id. at 41-49).
On May 24, 2017, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision. People v. Rodriguez, 150 A.D.3d 1154 (2d Dep't 2017); see also SR 118-19. The court held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence and the trial court was "justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 1155. The court further held that Detective Koch's testimony was admissible, and not collateral, because it "corroborated the complainant's testimony which [petitioner], during his own testimony, had refuted." Id. The court rejected petitioner's ineffective trial counsel claims Id. at 1156.
Petitioner sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals denied leave on July 28, 2017. People v. Rodriguez, 30 N.Y.3d 982 (2017); see also SR 123-26).
On April 3, 2018, petitioner filed a petition in this court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. (See ECF No. 1, Pet.) Petitioner raises the same four claims he raised on direct appeal to the Appellate Division. Petitioner again argues that: (1) the People failed to prove petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) the petitioner's due process rights were violated when the trial court allowed improper testimony and elicited inadmissible evidence in the trial over counsel's objections when Detective Koch testified; (3) petitioner received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which deprived him of a fair trial and due process of law; and (4) there was improper interference by the trial court during defense counsel's summation. (Pet. at 4-6.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment may only be brought on the grounds that his or her custody is "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A habeas petitioner is required to show that the state court decision, having been adjudicated on the merits, is either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law" or was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013).
For the purposes of federal habeas review, "clearly established law" is...
To continue reading
Request your trial