Rodriguez v. Smith
| Decision Date | 28 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-CV-8306 (KMK) (LMS),10-CV-8306 (KMK) (LMS) |
| Parties | RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH SMITH, Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Appearances:
Rafael Rodriguez
Wallkill, NY
Carrie Anne Ciganek, Esq.
District Attorney of Rockland County
New City, NY
Petitioner Rafael Rodriguez ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, files this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for attempted rape in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35(1), two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.65(1), and two counts of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 135.05. (See Pet. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus By A Person in State Custody ("Pet.") ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 3).) Petitioner was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment and five years' post-release supervision for the attempted rape conviction, five years' imprisonment for each of the sexual abuse convictions, and one year imprisonment for each of the unlawful imprisonment convictions, all of which were to run concurrently. (See Aff. of Carrie A. Ciganek in Opp'n ("Ciganek Aff.") ¶ 6 (Dkt. No. 9); see also September 18, 2007 Sentence Tr. ("Sentence Tr.") 22-23 (Dkt. No. 26).) Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the following grounds: (1) Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that certain statements should be suppressed because he did not understand the Miranda warnings given to him; (2) the sexual abuse counts in the Indictment were not sufficiently detailed to provide Petitioner with fair notice of the charges against him; (3) the trial court failed to meaningfully respond to the jury's questions regarding the sexual abuse charges, which deprived Petitioner of a fair trial; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted rape in the first degree; and (5) Petitioner's sentence was harsh and excessive, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Pet. ¶ 12 & Attachment A.) The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith, who issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. (See R&R (Dkt. No. 35).) Petitioner filed timely objections to the R&R (the "Objections"), pressing the arguments listed above. (See Pet'r's Obj's to R&R ("Pet'r's Obj's") (Dkt. No. 37).) For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the R&R in substantial part, modifies it in part, and denies Petitioner's request for habeas relief.
The factual and procedural background of this case is set forth in the R&R and the Court assumes the Parties' familiarity therewith. (See R&R 2-5.) The Court nevertheless summarizes the pertinent facts. As relevant to Petitioner's request for habeas relief, Petitioner was convicted for events in connection with the sexual assault of Rosa Cabezas ("Cabezas") in Spring Valley, New York on January 2, 2007. 1 Petitioner kept Cabezas in her bedroom for over two hours while he forcibly removed her clothing, restrained her, touched her breasts and vagina with his hands and penis, and penetrated her vagina with his penis, all against her will. (Resp't's Habeas Mem. 2.) Cabezas eventually locked herself in the bathroom, called for help from the window, and, after the neighbors called the police, the police arrived and used a ladder to rescue Cabezas from the window. (Id.) When the police arrived at the scene, Petitioner was gone. (Id.) Petitioner was arrested later that day and gave written and videotaped statements that were consistent with the victim's account of events. (Id.)
On January 16, 2007, by Indictment No. 2007-7, a Rockland County grand jury charged Petitioner with one count of rape in the first degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.35(1), one count of rape in the third degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.25(3), two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.65(1), two counts of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 135.05, and two counts of assault in the third degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 120.00(1). (Indictment; see also Resp't's Habeas Mem. 2.) After a jury trial before Judge Catherine M. Bartlett of the County Court of Rockland County, Petitioner was convicted of attempted rape in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35(1), two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.65(1), and two counts of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 135.05.
On direct appeal, Petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that: (1) the two counts of the Indictment charging sexual abuse in the first degree were jurisdictionally defective and should have been dismissed and the bill of particulars did not cure the defect; (2) the trial court's failure to meaningfully respond to the jury's questions regarding the sexual abuse charges seriously prejudiced Petitioner and deprived him of his due process rights to a fair trial; (3) the prosecution failed to prove Petitioner's guilt of attempted rape in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was legally insufficient; and (4) Petitioner's sentence was harsh and excessive. The Respondent filed a brief in opposition, (Ciganek Aff. Ex. C (Brief for Resp't ("Appellee's Br."))), and Petitioner filed a reply, (Ciganek Aff. Ex. D (Appellant's Reply Brief ("Appellant's Reply"))). The Appellate Division affirmed Petitioner's conviction on May 5, 2009. People v. Rodriguez, 880 N.Y.S.2d 89 (App. Div. 2009). The New York Court of Appeals denied Petitioner leave to appeal on August 13, 2009. People v. Rodriguez, 914 N.E.2d 1020 (N.Y. 2009).
On or about July 5, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition, pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 440.10, seeking to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to: (1) elicit important facts and make the necessary argument to obtain suppression because the proof at the Huntley hearing did not establish that Petitioner understood his Miranda warnings; and (2) research and apply the law regarding unnecessary delay of arraignments in violation of Petitioner's federal and state constitutional right to counsel. (See Ciganek Aff. ¶ 10 & Ex. G (Defendant's CPL § 440.10 Motion ("Def.'s § 440.10 Motion")).) The Rockland County Courtdenied Petitioner's motion to vacate on September 17, 2009. (See Ciganek Aff. ¶ 11 & Ex. J ("Rockland County September 17 Order").)
As noted above, on November 3, 2010, Petitioner filed the Petition. (See Dkt. No. 3.) Magistrate Judge Smith issued the R&R, recommending that the Court deny Petitioner's request for relief and dismiss the Petition in its entirety. (See R&R 2.) Petitioner subsequently filed his Objections. (See Dkt. No. 37.)
A district court reviewing a report and recommendation addressing a dispositive motion "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party may submit objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The objections must be "specific" and "written," Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and must be made "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition," id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), plus an additional three days when service is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C)-(F), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), for a total of seventeen days, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1).
Where a party timely submits objections to a report and recommendation, as Petitioner has done here, the district court reviews de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In contrast, "[a] district court evaluating a magistrate judge's report may adopt those portions of the report [and recommendation] to which no 'specific, written objection' is made, as long as the factual andlegal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Adams v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Educ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).
Finally, pleadings submitted by pro se litigants are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402 (2008) . Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his pleadings to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus are governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which provides that "[t]he writ may not issue for any claim adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the state court's decision was 'contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial