Singh v. Greene
| Decision Date | 20 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | No 10-CV-4444 (JFB),10-CV-4444 (JFB) |
| Parties | Balram Singh, Petitioner, v. Gary Greene, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Balram Singh (hereinafter, "Singh" or "petitioner"), by way of counsel, petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to vacate his conviction entered May 26, 2005, in the County Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (the "trial court"), for murder in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(3)), assault in the first degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 120.10(4)), arson in the first (N.Y. Penal Law § 150.20(1)) and third degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 150.10(1)), stalking in the third degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 120.50), and menacing in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 120.14). Singh was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty-eight years to life.
Singh challenges his conviction on four grounds. Specifically, petitioner asserts that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erred by precluding the introduction of evidence of the petitioner's mental capacity; (3) the prosecution failed to disclose potentially exculpatory material in a timely manner; and (4) defense counsel failed to provide effective representation by failing to follow state procedural requirements regarding mental health evidence and failing to move for an adjournment or mistrial upon the discovery of withheld exculpatory material. As discussed below, the petitioner has procedurally defaulted on his second and third grounds for relief. In any event, the Court has examined each of the petitioner's claims on the merits and concludes that there is no basis for habeas relief. All of petitioner's claims are without merit. Therefore, the petition is denied in its entirety on the merits.
The following facts are adduced from the instant petition and the record below.
At all times relevant to this case, the petitioner was a mechanic for North Atlantic Energy in the Bronx. (T.1 at 1146-47.) Petitioner's employer dealt only with the sale and delivery of diesel fuel and Number 2 oil, not gasoline. (Id. at 1109.) The employer did use a gasoline-powered forklift at the site for deliveries, which petitioner occasionally worked on. (Id. at 1110, 1190.) However, petitioner's primary job duties consisted of "[a]nything to do with the trucks[,]" including the repair and maintenance of diesel truck engines and transmissions. (Id. at 1177.)
The petitioner met Holika Mangroo ("Holika") in 2000, and the two began dating during the summer of 2003. (Id. at 983-84.) In early 2004, Holika and the petitioner became engaged and started living together. (Id. at 984-85.) Holika ended the relationship in late March or early April of 2004; one of the reasons for the breakup was that the petitioner shoved her against a door during an argument. (Id. at 986.) After this happened, Holika moved into her family's apartment at 45 Broadway, Apartment 1Z, Freeport, New York (hereinafter, "Mangroo Apartment"). (Id. at 991.)
The breakup was the beginning of a months-long pattern of violent harassment against Holika by the petitioner. The petitioner repeatedly called Holika at work and at her apartment. (Id. at 987-91.) On May 27, 2004, petitioner approached Holika as she was walking to a train station. (Id. at 991-93.) Singh lifted his shirt up and showed Holika his gun, threatening to use it on her. (Id. at 993.) Holika convinced the petitioner to return to her apartment. (Id. at 994-95.) Petitioner ultimately left without becoming more violent. (Id. at 995.)
On June 4, 2004, a Ford Expedition SUV owned by Holika's sister Salima Ishmail ("Salima") was set on fire. (Id. 998.) Although owned by Salima, the SUV was used by Holika and other family members. (Id. at 997.) The petitioner had previously traveled in the SUV. (Id. at 99798.) A neighbor observed a gray Honda with clear tail lights leaving the scene of the SUV fire. (Id. at 1219-20.) The petitioner owned a gray Honda Civic with clear tail lights. (Id. at 543, 996, 1266.) An arson detective concluded that the SUV had been intentionally set on fire. (Id. at 841.)
On June 11, 2004, the petitioner went to the bank where Holika worked and demanded to see her. (Id. at 1002-04.) Two bank employees told him to leave, which he did. (Id. at 1202-03.) Holika reported the incident to the police. (Id. at 1004.)
On June 24, 2004, Singh approached Holika as she left her sister's apartment. (Id. at 1005.) Holika attempted to flee back inside the apartment, but the petitioner caught up with her outside the apartment door and grabbed her. (Id.) Petitioner only let Holika go after she screamed for help. (Id.) Holika's sister was able to open the door and let Holika in, where she then called the police to report the incident. (Id.)
On the evening of July 4, 2004, James Cavanagh, a co-worker of the petitioner, discovered Singh on the company's grounds despite not being scheduled to work at that time. (Id. at 1148-49.) Petitioner told Cavanagh that his cousin's car had run outof gas and asked to borrow one of the company's gas cans. (Id. at 1150-51.) Cavanagh gave the petitioner permission to borrow the can and observed the gas can in the trunk of petitioner's Honda Civic. (Id. at 1148-51.) After having a cup of coffee with the petitioner, Cavanagh saw him drive away in his Civic, with the gas can in the trunk, sometime after 9:00 p.m. (Id. at 1148, 1151, 1181.)
At approximately 3:50 a.m. on July 5, 2004, the Mangroo Apartment became engulfed in flames. (Id. at 1008.) Sleeping inside the apartment at the time the fire began were Holika's mother Basmattie Mangroo, Holika, Salima, Salima's husband Intiaz Ishmail ("Intiaz"), and Salima and Intiaz's two young children. (Id. at 100708.) The sound of the flames awoke Holika, who called 911 after waking up her mother. (Id. at 1008-09.)
Firefighters arrived at the apartment building shortly thereafter. (Id. at 550, 575, 595.) Firefighters were able to enter the apartment and rescue most of its occupants. (Id. at 577-78, 629, 645-46.) However, they were unable to save Salima Ishmail, who died from smoke inhalation. (Id. at 601, 1246.) In addition, several other occupants suffered serious injuries. The Ishmails' six-year-old daughter Afsaana suffered carbon monoxide poisoning, while their one-year-old son received second-degree burns to the face, forehead, right arm and right leg. (Id. at 616-20.) Intiaz suffered a collapsed lung and burns to his right arm. (Id. at 791-95.)
After the blaze was extinguished, Nassau County Fire Marshal Investigator James Hickman ("Fire Investigator Hickman") visited the site of the fire. (Id. at 1622.) Hickman concluded that the fire was the result of arson. (Id.) His conclusion was based on burn patterns, the presence of accelerant pour patterns on the floor near the apartment door, and the elimination of any electrical or accidental causes. (Id. at 162023.)
Video surveillance from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Bridge and Tunnel Authority showed that a driver with a deformity on his left index finger drove over the Whitestone Bridge from the Bronx onto Long Island at around 1:28 a.m. on July 5; the petitioner had the same deformity. (Id. at 1430, 1445, 1454, 1486-91.) Surveillance showed the same car reentering the Bronx via the bridge at 4:25 a.m., about thirty-five minutes after the apartment fire started. (Id. at 1491-95.) According to Nassau County Police Detective David Nystrom, a person could easily drive from the Mangroo Apartment to the Whitestone Bridge in under thirty-five minutes. (Id. at 484-86.)
Petitioner was arrested as he drove away from the grounds of North Atlantic Energy in the afternoon of July 5. (Id. at 1262, 1265-66.) Scientific testing of the baseball cap and work shirt petitioner was wearing at the time confirmed the presence of gasoline. (Id. at 1353-54, 1393-94, 1413.) Petitioner's employer did not deliver or sell gasoline, although the petitioner occasionally worked on the employer's gasoline-powered forklift. Gasoline was not found on any of the petitioner's other clothes. (Id. at 1401.)
The day after petitioner's arrest, a coworker at North Atlantic Energy discovered a cloth trunk liner inside the compressor compartment of one of the company's flatbed trucks. (Id. at 1178-81.) The liner found in the compressor compartment was the same color as the one that one of petitioner's co-workers had previously seen in petitioner's car. (Id. at 1181-82.) The trunk liner of petitioner's carwas missing at the time of his arrest. (Id. at 836-37.) However, no traces of gasoline were found on the trunk liner discovered in the compressor compartment. (Id. at 1406.)
Samuel Maglione ("Maglione"), a retired fire chief from New Jersey, testified as an expert on behalf of the defense. Maglione viewed photographs of the Mangroo Apartment after the fire and reviewed testimony of the firefighters about the aftermath of the fire, but did not visit the actual scene of the fire. (Id. at 1814-15.) Based on these photographs, Maglione concluded that the fire was not the result of arson, but rather was an accidental fire that began in a closet in the apartment. (Id. at 1848.) On cross-examination, Maglione conceded that he could not be sure that the fire started in the closet and could not rule out that gasoline could have been used as an accelerant. (Id. at 2003-04.)
The defense also recalled Fire Investigator Hickman. Based on an out-of-court encounter with Hickman, defense counsel attempted to elicit from Hickman testimony that a "saddle" was present under the door of the Mangroo Apartment and that a saddle would have prevented gasoline from entering the apartment. (Id. at 203134.) Hickman denied that he believed that a saddle was in fact present. (Id. at 2032.)
Petitioner was indicted on eleven counts...
To continue reading
Request your trial