Cabrera v. The People of The State of New York, No. 1:2016cv07938 - Document 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. The Court has thus reviewed the Report for clear error, and finds none. The Court agrees completely with Judge Parker's thoughtful and well-re asoned Report and hereby adopts its reasoning by reference. For the foregoing reasons, the Report is adopted in full, and the Petition is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall dismiss this Petition and close the case. Since Petitioner has no t made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good fai th; therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/23/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cabrera v. The People of The State of New York UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Doc. 27 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ 23, 2018 DATE FILED: October ______________ LUIS CABRERA, Petitioner, 16 Civ. 7938 (KPF) -v.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Respondent. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Petitioner Luis Cabrera, who is proceeding pro se and is currently detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 6, 2016 (the “Petition”), against Respondent People of the State of New York. Petitioner seeks review of his conviction in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, of one count of burglary in the second degree. Pursuant to a referral from this Court, United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a 37-page Report and Recommendation dated October 13, 2017 (the “Report”), recommending that the Petition be denied. The Court has examined both the Report and Petitioner’s October 30, 2017 Objection to that Report (the “Objection”), and finds that the Report should be adopted in full. Accordingly, the Petition is denied. Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND 1 The facts and procedural history leading up to the Petition are detailed in the Report. (See Report 2-13). Nonetheless, a brief summary of the relevant facts is useful to this Court’s analysis. After a bench trial, the trial court found Petitioner guilty on March 12, 2014, on one count of burglary in the second degree. (Report 9). Petitioner was sentenced on May 1, 2014, to a prison term of three and a half years, to be followed by two and a half years of post-release supervision. (Id.). The evidence at trial established the following: On June 3, 2012, Yokasta Ballista and her daughter, Genesis Sanchez, arrived at their apartment in the Robert F. Wagner Houses and encountered Petitioner, with whom they were familiar, and an unidentified man in the hallway outside their apartment handling a new air-conditioner unit that resembled the one Ms. Ballista had recently purchased. (Report 2-3). Upon checking their apartment, Ms. Sanchez discovered that the family’s air conditioner and other property was missing. (Id. at 3). Ms. Ballista attempted to grab the air conditioner, and the unknown man left the scene. (Id.). Petitioner fled as well, before returning to profess his innocence. (Id.). Ms. Sanchez reported the robbery but initially declined to identify Petitioner; at trial, Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Ballista explained that they considered Petitioner a family friend and had not personally witnessed him commit the crime. (Id.). 1 This Opinion draws its facts largely from the Report (Dkt. #24) and the Objection (Dkt #25). 2 Lieutenant Jennara Cobb of the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”) was assigned that day to the Video Interactive Patrol Enhanced Response (“VIPER”) 12 Unit, a unit tasked with maintaining video surveillance of the Wagner Houses; she learned of the incident over police radio. (Report 4). After reviewing surveillance video and identifying individuals who matched the victims’ descriptions of the suspects, Lt. Cobb saved specific portions of the video that depicted the suspects and the victims. (Id.). The excerpted videos showed Petitioner entering and leaving an apartment building several times and carrying bags that Ms. Ballista identified as her property. (Id.). Lt. Cobb compiled the excerpted portions into one video of approximately 16 minutes’ duration and burned it onto a disc; the video was introduced as People’s Exhibit 12 at trial. (Id.). Detective Gregory Redford, also investigating the case, visited VIPER 12 the next day and viewed surveillance video to look for men who matched the victim’s descriptions of the two perpetrators. (Report 4). After observing video of two men matching those descriptions riding the elevator to the victim’s floor several times and of Petitioner leaving the building carrying property, Detective Redford asked VIPER 12 to segregate and copy any portions of the surveillance video that included the two men. (Id. at 4-5). Lt. Cobb produced another disc, later introduced at trial as People’s Exhibit 1, which contained approximately 30 minutes of video, including the 16 minutes that had been included in People’s Exhibit 12. (Id. at 5). 3 Det. Redford showed the video to Ms. Ballista and Ms. Sanchez, who identified one of the two men as Petitioner. (Report 6). Det. Redford then reported internally to the NYPD that Petitioner was wanted in connection with the burglary, and Petitioner was arrested on March 18, 2013. (Id.). Petitioner was indicted on eight counts of burglary in the second degree on March 25, 2013. (Report 6). The trial court dismissed seven counts for lack of evidence, and a bench trial on the remaining count began on March 6, 2014. (Id.). Before opening statements, Petitioner’s trial counsel objected to the introduction of People’s Exhibit 1, arguing that the entirety of the video footage shot of the day of the incident should have been turned over, rather than merely the portions depicting the event in question. (Report 6). Prosecutors called Det. Redford to authenticate the video, but after objection and crossexamination by Petitioner’s trial counsel, the trial court admitted only those portions of the video that Det. Redford could confirm he had personally watched. (Id. at 7). At the close of its case, the prosecution called Lt. Cobb, explaining that the State now believed only Lt. Cobb could properly authenticate the video. (Report 7). Prosecutors then disclosed that they had only recently learned that (i) Lt. Cobb was the officer responsible for compiling the videos and (ii) Lt. Cobb was both under indictment in an unrelated matter and the subject of an adverse credibility finding in United States v. Jackson, No. 10 Cr. 783 (NRB), 2011 WL 1431983 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2011). (Id. at 7-8). The State argued that 4 these disclosures satisfied the obligations imposed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (Id. at 8). Petitioner’s counsel objected to Lt. Cobb’s testimony and argued that it would be prejudicial, as counsel would have conducted additional research if notified of Lt. Cobb’s background earlier. (Id.). The trial court ruled that Lt. Cobb could testify, but that Petitioner’s counsel would be able to seek additional time to prepare for cross-examination. (Id.). Before Lt. Cobb’s testimony, prosecutors explained that they intended to have her introduce People’s Exhibit 12 in addition to the remainder of People’s Exhibit 1; Petitioner’s counsel renewed her objections. (Report 8). Lt. Cobb then testified as to the creation of the videos. (Id.). Before cross-examination, the trial court asked Petitioner’s trial counsel if she was ready to begin, and she responded that she was. (Id.). On cross-examination, Lt. Cobb explained that her then-current assignment was the result of modified duty after her indictment, and she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights in response to further questions about the indictment. (Id. at 9). She also testified that between the time she had spoken with Det. Redford regarding the creation of People’s Exhibit 1 and trial, she had had no involvement in the case. (Id.). After her testimony and further argument, the trial court admitted People’s Exhibits 1 and 12. (Id.). On March 12, 2014, the trial court found Petitioner guilty, and on May 1, 2014, it sentenced Petitioner. (Id.). In his direct appeal to the Appellate Division, Petitioner argued that he had been denied a fair trial due to the admission of People’s Exhibits 1 and 12; that the evidence at trial had been legally insufficient to establish the element 5 of unlawful entry; and that the untimely disclosure of impeachment evidence had violated the State’s constitutional obligations under Brady. (Report 9-10). The First Department affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on March 31, 2016. See People v. Cabrera, 137 A.D.3d 707 (1st Dep’t 2016). Petitioner’s application for leave to appeal that decision was then denied by the New York Court of Appeals on June 9, 2016. People v. Cabrera, 27 N.Y.3d 1129 (2016). Petitioner is a citizen of the Dominican Republic, and on May 14, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. (Report 11). DHS argued that Petitioner was subject to removal due to a prior conviction for the crime of attempted criminal possession of cocaine. (Id.). On May 18, 2016, DHS added a charge against Petitioner under Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for the burglary conviction at issue here. On August 30, 2016, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner’s removal, and he remains in federal detention awaiting a determination of his appeal from that order. On October 6, 2016, Petitioner filed his Petition with this Court, asserting the same three claims for relief that the First Department had rejected. (Report 12). Before receiving a response, Petitioner filed a second submission restating his previous claims and adding two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id.). Specifically, Petitioner argued that his counsel had failed (i) to investigate his mental state and raise a possible insanity defense, and (ii) to inform him of the immigration consequences of a non-jury trial and, relatedly, failed to seek a judicial recommendation against 6 deportation (“JRAD”). (Id.). Petitioner argued that he might not have agreed to a bench trial, had he understood the immigration consequences that could result from a conviction. (Id.). By Order dated April 12, 2017, this Court ordered that this second submission would serve as the operative Petition. (Id. at 13). On November 9, 2016, this Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. (Report 12). Judge Parker issued the Report on October 13, 2017, recommending that the Petition be denied in its entirety. As to Petitioner’s first claim that he had been denied a fair trial due to the admission of People’s Exhibits 1 and 12, Judge Parker ruled that the trial court was well within its discretion to admit the videos, which were introduced by competent police witnesses and highly probative as to Petitioner’s guilt. (Id. at 18-21). Next, Judge Parker ruled that Petitioner’s argument that his conviction was against the weight of evidence was both unexhausted and procedurally barred. (Id. at 18-21). Judge Parker then considered, and rejected, Petitioner’s claim that the late disclosure of information related to Lt. Cobb’s indictment precluded him from presenting an adequate defense. She ruled that the Appellate Division did not err in determining that the trial court had adequately cured any Brady issues by providing defense counsel additional time to investigate Lt. Cobb. (Id. at 26-29). Finally, Judge Parker examined Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determining first that Petitioner had not exhausted them, inasmuch as he raised them for the first time only in the Petition. (Report 297 30). Nevertheless, Judge Parker considered the merits of the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). (Id. at 29-30). Judge Parker determined that counsel’s failure to raise an insanity defense was not ineffective as there was no evidence to suggest that such a defense was viable. (Id. at 33-34). She then determined that the claims regarding waiver of a jury trial and the failure to ask for a JRAD lacked merit, as Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a jury trial would have resulted in a different outcome and “the JRAD procedure is no longer part of our law.” (Id. at 34-36 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 363 (2010))). On October 30, 2017, Petitioner filed the Objection, which stated in relevant part that he “object[ed] to the report and recommendation in its entirety, and respectfully request[ed] that the Court grant the relief sought in his petition for [a] writ of habeas corpus[.]” (Objection 4). DISCUSSION A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989). A court may also accept those portions of a report to which no specific, written objection is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings are not clearly erroneous. See Ramirez v. United States, 898 F. Supp. 2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citation omitted). A magistrate judge’s decision is clearly erroneous only if the district court is “‘left with the definite and firm conviction 8 that a mistake has been committed.’” Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). When a timely and specific objection has been made, the district court is obligated to review the issues de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653, 656 (2d Cir. 1998). However, when the objections make solely conclusory statements, the court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Dickerson v. Conway, No. 08 Civ. 8024 (PAE) (FM), 2013 WL 3199094, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2013); see Kirk v. Burge, 646 F. Supp. 2d 534, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (collecting cases). Although pro se filings are read liberally and interpreted “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest” Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), “even a pro se party’s objections . . . must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal[,]” DiPilato v. 7Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation omitted). Petitioner raises no specific objection to the Report’s conclusions. (See Objection 1-4). Beyond a conclusory sentence noting his objection, Petitioner’s submission merely restates the case’s procedural history and the arguments raised by the parties. (Id.). Even reading Petitioner’s Objection liberally, the Court does not find there are specific objections that trigger de novo review. CONCLUSION The Court has thus reviewed the Report for clear error, and finds none. The Court agrees completely with Judge Parker’s thoughtful and well-reasoned Report and hereby adopts its reasoning by reference. 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Report is adopted in full, and the Petition is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall dismiss this Petition and close the case. Since Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: October 23, 2018 New York, New York KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge Copies of this Opinion and the Report were sent by first class mail to: Luis Cabrera A#205-708-837 Buffalo Federal Detention Facility 4250 Federal Drive Batavia, NY 14020 10 UNITED"STATES"DISTRICT"COURT" SOUTHERN"DISTRICT"OF"NEW"YORK" 10/13/2017 LUIS"CABRERA," REPORT"AND"RECOMMENDATION" Petitioner," 16 cv 07938"(KPF)"(KHP)" – against"– THE"PEOPLE"OF"THE"STATE"OF"NEW"YORK,""""""""""" Respondent." TO:""THE"HONORABLE"KATHERINE"POLK"FAILLA,"United"States"District"Judge" FROM:""KATHARINE"H."PARKER,"United"States"Magistrate"Judge" Petitioner"Luis"Cabrera,"proceeding"pro"se,"filed"a"petition"for"a"writ"of"habeas"corpus" (the"“Petition”)"pursuant"to"28"U.S.C."§"2254,"challenging"his"conviction"after"a"bench"trial"in" New"York"Supreme"Court,"New"York"County,"of"burglary"in"the"second"degree"and"his"sentence" to"a"prison"term"of"three"and"a"half"years,"to"be"followed"by"two"and"a"half"years"of"post release" supervision."" Petitioner"asserts"four"grounds"for"habeas"relief:"(1)"the"trial"court"erred"in"admitting" two"videos"into"evidence,"thus"depriving"him"of"a"fair"trial;"(2)"his"conviction"was"against"the" weight"of"the"evidence;"(3)"the"state"courts"erred"in"ruling"that"the"People"of"the"State"of"New" York"(the"“State”)"lived"up"to"its"obligation"under"Brady"v."Maryland,"373"U.S."83"(1963),"to"turn" over"material"which"could"be"used"to"impeach"one"of"the"State’s"witnesses,"thus"depriving"him" of"his"rights"under"the"Sixth"and"Fourteenth"Amendments;"and"(4)"his"trial"counsel"was" ineffective"for"failing"to"ask"him"if"he"was"suffering"from"mental"illness"as"a"predicate"to"raising" 1 an"insanity"defense,"for"failing"to"inform"him"that,"if"convicted,"he"would"be"subject"to" deportation,"and"for"failing"to"ask"for"a"judicial"recommendation"against"deportation"(“JRAD”)."" Respondent"opposes"the"Petition."Respondent"first"argues"that"Petitioner’s"claim" regarding"the"admissibility"of"the"video"evidence"is"not"cognizable"upon"habeas"review"because" the"claim"is"based"on"state"law,"and"that,"in"any"event,"the"trial"court’s"admission"of"the" evidence"did"not"deprive"Petitioner"of"a"fair"trial."Respondent"next"contends"that"Petitioner’s" second"claim,"that"his"conviction"was"against"the"“weight"of"the"evidence,”"is"unexhausted"and" furthermore,"is"similarly"not"cognizable."As"to"Petitioner’s"third"ground"for"habeas"relief," Respondent"asserts"that"the"Appellate"Division"reasonably"applied"Supreme"Court"precedent"in" rejecting"Petitioner’s"Brady"claim."Finally,"Respondent"contends"that"Petitioner’s"claim"for" ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"is"unexhausted"and"not"procedurally"defaulted,"but"that"it" should"nevertheless"be"dismissed"because"it"fails"on"the"merits."" For"the"reasons"that"follow,"this"Court"concludes"that"Petitioner’s"first"and"third"claims," though"exhausted,"were"reasonably"denied"by"the"New"York"Appellate"Division,"First" Department"(“Appellate"Division”)"applying"clearly"established"federal"law;"his"second"claim"is" unexhausted"and"procedurally"barred;"and"his"fourth"claim"is"unexhausted,"but"clearly"without" merit."This"Court"therefore"recommends"that"the"Petition"be"dismissed"in"its"entirety."" BACKGROUND" A. Trial"Evidence" On"June"3,"2012,"after"arriving"home"from"church,"Yokasta"Ballista"and"her"18 year old" daughter,"Genesis"Sanchez,"encountered"Petitioner,"a"Hispanic"male,"and"an"unknown"African American"man"in"the"hallway"outside"their"apartment"in"the"Robert"F."Wagner"Houses."Ms." 2 Ballista"and"Ms."Sanchez"observed"Petitioner,"whom"they"had"known"for"over"a"decade"as"a" family"friend,"and"the"unknown"man"standing"over"a"box"that"appeared"to"contain"their"family’s" new"air"conditioner"unit,"which"they"had"recently"purchased"but"not"yet"installed."Ms."Ballista" commented"to"Ms."Sanchez"that"the"air"conditioner"looked"like"theirs,"and"asked"Ms."Sanchez" to"check"the"apartment"to"see"if"their"air"conditioner"was"missing."Upon"entering"the"unlocked" apartment,"Ms."Sanchez"discovered"that"the"family’s"air"conditioner"and"other"property," including"a"new"stereo"system,"were"missing." Ms."Ballista"then"tried"to"grab"the"air"conditioner"from"the"men."The"unknown"man" initially"claimed"that"the"air"conditioner"belonged"to"him,"but"fled"shortly"thereafter.1"Petitioner" initially"left"the"scene"as"well,"but"soon"returned"and"helped"the"women"carry"the"air" conditioner"back"into"their"apartment."According"to"Ms."Sanchez"and"Ms."Ballista,"throughout" the"encounter,"Petitioner"was"“shaking"a"lot,”"seemed"“nervous,”"and"avoided"eye contact"with" them."(Doc."No."20 3"p."102.)"Petitioner"also"allegedly"told"Ms."Sanchez"and"Ms."Ballista"that"he" did"not"do"anything"wrong,"saying"that"he"was"their"friend"and"would"never"do"something"like" this."" Ms."Sanchez"subsequently"reported"the"incident"to"the"police,"but,"at"Ms."Ballista’s" direction,"did"not"immediately"identify"Petitioner"as"one"of"the"perpetrators."According"to"the" trial"testimony,"Ms."Ballista"and"Ms."Sanchez"did"not"provide"Petitioner’s"name"to"the" responding"officers"because,"while"they"suspected"Petitioner"was"involved,"they"had"not" witnessed"the"crime,"and"Petitioner"was"a"family"friend." 1 "This"individual"was"never"identified"or"apprehended." 3 Lieutenant"Jennara"Cobb,"the"commanding"officer"of"NYPD’s"Video"Interactive"Patrol" Enhanced"Response"(“VIPER”)"12"Unit,"a"unit"tasked"with"monitoring"and"maintaining"video" surveillance"of"the"Wagner"Houses,"heard"about"the"incident"over"the"police"radio"on"the"day"it" was"reported."Lt."Cobb"reached"out"to"the"responding"officers"to"get"a"description"of"the" suspects."She"then"reviewed"surveillance"footage"of"the"Wagner"Houses"and"found"portions"of" recorded"video"that"depicted"two"men"who"matched"the"description"of"the"suspects"involved"in" the"incident,"as"given"by"the"responding"officers."Specifically,"Lt."Cobb"“clipped”"and"saved" portions"of"the"surveillance"recordings"from"different"cameras"that"depicted"only"the"suspects" and"the"victims"(Ms."Ballista"and"Ms."Sanchez)."Lt."Cobb"chose"not"to"include"in"the"compilation" any"footage"that"did"not"depict"Petitioner,"the"unknown"man,"or"the"victims."The"“clipped”" footage"selected"by"Lt."Cobb"depicted"Petitioner"entering"and"leaving"the"building"several" times."The"footage"also"showed"Petitioner"carrying"items"out"of"the"building"in"bags"that"Ms." Ballista"subsequently"recognized"as"hers."After"spending"about"five"hours"watching"20"hours"of" recorded,"sped up"surveillance"footage,"Lt."Cobb"compiled"the"saved"portions"of"the"footage" into"one"video"and"burned"it"onto"a"disc,"which"was"later"designated"People’s"12."The"video"did" not"have"timestamps"or"any"other"markers"indicating"the"time"or"date"of"the"events"it"depicted," as"they"were"erased"during"the"process"of"compiling"the"video.""" Detective"Gregory"Redford,"also"of"the"NYPD,"began"investigating"the"burglary"on"the" following"day."As"part"of"his"investigation,"Detective"Redford"visited"VIPER"12"and"viewed"the" footage"recorded"by"VIPER"12’s"surveillance"cameras"on"the"morning"and"afternoon"of"the" incident,"looking"for"men"whose"appearances"matched"those"given"by"the"witnesses."With" assistance"from"Lt."Cobb,"Detective"Redford"found"video"footage"of"two"men,"one"Hispanic" 4 (Petitioner)"and"one"African American,"entering"the"building"several"times"empty handed"and" riding"the"elevator"to"the"floor"on"which"the"victims"live,"and"of"Petitioner"leaving"the"building" carrying"property."Detective"Redford"testified"that"he"watched"several"hours"of"the"surveillance" recordings,"but"he"did"not"find"any"footage"of"Petitioner"actually"entering"the"victim’s" apartment,"nor"of"the"encounter"with"the"victims"in"the"hallway."" Detective"Redford"then"asked"for"someone"at"VIPER"12"(later"identified"as"Lt."Cobb)"to" burn"the"footage"of"the"two"burglary"suspects"onto"a"disc."This"video"would"later"be"designated" People’s"1."Like"People’s"12,"People’s"1"contained"spliced"and"compiled"footage"from"different" cameras"depicting"the"two"men"in"the"lobby"and"stairwell"of"the"building,"plus"additional" footage"of"the"two"men"outside"of"the"building,"as"captured"by"VIPER"12’s"cameras.2"Detective" Redford"did"not"personally"view"this"exterior"footage,"but"asked"VIPER"12"personnel"to"include" in"the"video"any"additional"footage"of"the"suspects."The"People’s"1"video"did"not"contain"any" footage"of"the"building"from"the"rest"of"the"day,"or"of"any"other"people"besides"the"two" suspects"and"the"victims."And,"like"People’s"12,"People’s"1"did"not"bear"any"timestamps"or"other" indicia"of"the"time"or"date"of"the"footage"depicted"on"the"disc."People’s"1"contained" approximately"30"minutes"of"video,"which"was"longer"than"the"16"minutes"of"video"contained" on"People’s"12."Notably,"all"of"the"footage"selected"by"Lt."Cobb"and"compiled"in"People’s"12"was" included"in"People’s"1."Detective"Redford"received"the"People’s"1"disc"either"later"on"the"same" 2 "Both"videos"(People’s"1"and"12)"were"made"up"of"footage"from"several"cameras"that"was"compiled"together."Both" Detective"Redford"and"Lt."Cobb"testified"that"the"footage"depicted"the"same"events"from"different"angles"in" sequential"order"(i.e.,"Camera"1"showing"Petitioner"enter"building"followed"by"Camera"2"showing"same,"Camera"1" showing"him"go"upstairs"followed"by"Camera"2"showing"same,"etc.)." 5 day"that"he"visited"VIPER"12,"or"on"the"following"day."Detective"Redford"provided"a"copy"of"the" People’s"1"disc"to"the"State"after"Petitioner"was"arrested." Two"days"after"People’s"1"was"created,"Detective"Redford"showed"it"to"Ms."Ballista"and" Ms."Sanchez."Ms."Ballista"and"Ms."Sanchez"identified"the"Hispanic"man"depicted"on"the"video"as" Petitioner."Detective"Redford"subsequently"alerted"other"police"officers"that"Petitioner"was" wanted"in"connection"with"the"burglary."On"March"18,"2013,"Petitioner"was"arrested." B. "Petitioner’s"Trial"And"Appeals" On"March"25,"2013,"Petitioner"was"indicted"on"eight"counts"of"burglary"in"the"second" degree."The"trial"court"subsequently"dismissed"seven"of"the"eight"counts"for"insufficient" evidence."On"March"6,"2014,"a"bench"trial"commenced"in"New"York"County"Supreme"Court"on" the"remaining"single"count"of"second degree"burglary."" At"trial,"arguments"about"the"admissibility"into"evidence"of"People’s"1"began"before" opening"arguments."Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"objected"to"the"introduction"of"the"video"into" evidence,"arguing"that"that"the"entirety"of"the"video"footage"captured"on"the"day"of"the" incident"should"have"been"turned"over"to"the"defense,"not"just"the"portions"that"purported"to" depict"the"events"in"controversy,"and"that"the"video"compilation"was"misleading"and"unduly" prejudicial."" The"State"called"its"first"witness,"Detective"Redford,"in"an"attempt"to"lay"a"foundation" upon"which"to"enter"the"video"into"evidence."Detective"Redford"testified"in"detail"as"to"his" investigation,"including"visiting"VIPER"12"and"selecting"the"footage"that"was"compiled"onto" People’s"1,"but"he"was"not"able"to"fully"testify"about"the"technical"capabilities"of"VIPER"12’s" 6 surveillance"or"VIPER’s"operating"procedures."Following"the"State’s"direct"examination"of" Detective"Redford,"the"State"moved"to"admit"the"video"compilation"into"evidence"as"People’s"1."" On"cross examination,"Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"questioned"Detective"Redford"about" whether"the"video"had"a"proper"foundation"upon"which"it"could"be"admitted"into"evidence."As" he"had"stated"during"direct"examination,"Detective"Redford"testified"that"he"did"not"burn"the" disc"himself,"nor"did"he"know"the"identity"of"the"person"who"did."He"also"admitted"that"he"did" not"know"how"the"footage"captured"by"VIPER"12’s"surveillance"cameras"was"stored,"or"exactly" how"long"it"was"stored."Detective"Redford"also"testified"that"he"did"not"remember"exactly"how" much"VIPER"surveillance"footage"he"watched,"but"he"recalled"that"he"did"not"view"surveillance" footage"captured"by"the"exterior"cameras"from"the"day"of"the"burglary."The"trial"court"allowed" the"State"to"enter"People’s"1"into"evidence,"but"only"the"parts"that"Detective"Redford"could" confirm"he"watched"in"the"VIPER"facility,"and"subject"to"further"argument"by"defense"counsel."" At"the"close"of"the"State’s"case,"on"Friday,"March"7,"2014,"the"State"announced"that"it" would"call"Lt."Cobb"as"a"witness"to"authenticate"the"full"version"of"People’s"1."Lt."Cobb"was"not" identified"on"the"State’s"witness"list"before"trial."The"State"explained"that"it"had"attempted"to" lay"a"foundation"upon"which"to"enter"People’s"1"through"Detective"Redford,"but"that"it"now" believed"that"Detective"Redford’s"testimony"was"insufficient"to"do"so"under"New"York"law."The" State"explained"that"it"had"only"learned"the"day"before"that"Lt."Cobb"was"the"one"who"created" People’s"1."" The"State"disclosed"that"Lt."Cobb"was"indicted"in"an"unrelated"case"and"provided" Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"with"a"copy"of"the"indictment"from"that"case,"as"well"as"a"Voluntary" Disclosure"Form"and"a"copy"of"a"decision"in"United"States"v."Jackson,"No."10 cr 783"(NRB),"2011" 7 WL"1431983"(S.D.N.Y."Apr."12,"2011),"a"case"in"which"Lt."Cobb"had"testified.3"The"State"asserted" that"these"disclosures"satisfied"its"obligations"under"Brady."" Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"objected"strenuously"to"the"State’s"identification"of"Lt."Cobb"as" a"trial"witness."Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"argued"that"she"was"“completely"prejudiced”"by"the" State’s"belated"identification"of"Lt."Cobb"and"that,"if"Lt."Cobb"had"been"properly"identified"as"a" witness,"she"would"have"conducted"additional"research"into"Lt."Cobb’s"personnel"records"and" testimony"in"United"States"v."Jackson."(Doc."No."20 4"pp."48 50.)"" The"trial"court"ruled"that"the"State"would"be"allowed"to"call"Lt."Cobb"as"a"witness"on"the" following"Monday,"but"that,"following"the"State’s"direct"examination,"Petitioner’s"trial"counsel" would"be"permitted"to"tell"the"court"how"much"time"she"needed"to"prepare"for"cross examining" Lt."Cobb."" On"Monday,"March"10,"2014,"the"parties"renewed"their"argument"over"the"State’s"intent" to"call"Lt."Cobb"as"a"witness."The"State"stated"that"it"would"seek"to"introduce"into"evidence"the" shorter"surveillance"compilation"prepared"by"Lt."Cobb,"People’s"12,"in"addition"to"People’s"1." Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"objected"to"this,"arguing"that"the"State"should"have"turned"over" People’s"12,"along"with"the"Brady"materials,"long"before"trial"in"order"to"afford"Petitioner"a" reasonable"opportunity"to"use"the"material"in"developing"his"trial"strategy."The"court"ruled"that" the"State"would"be"allowed"to"argue"for"the"introduction"of"People’s"12."" "In"United"States"v."Jackson,"the"court"declined"to"credit"Lt."Cobb’s"testimony"on"the"grounds"that"it"was" inconsistent"with"the"testimony"of"three"other"officers."2011"WL"1431983,"at"*11." 3 8 The"State"then"called"Lt."Cobb"to"the"stand."Lt."Cobb"testified"about"the"operating" procedures"and"technical"capacities"of"VIPER"12."Lt."Cobb"also"testified"about"her"involvement" in"viewing"the"surveillance"footage"and"creating"People’s"1"and"People’s"12."" Following"the"State’s"direct"examination"of"Lt."Cobb"and"a"recess,"the"trial"court"asked" Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"if"she"wished"to"begin"cross"examination."Petitioner’s"counsel" responded"that"she"was"ready"to"begin"questioning"Lt."Cobb."" On"cross examination,"Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"elicited"from"Lt."Cobb"that"she"had"been" assigned"to"VIPER"as"part"of"a"modified"duty"assignment"following"her"indictment."Petitioner’s" trial"counsel"attempted"to"ask"Lt."Cobb"about"the"indictment,"but,"following"her"attorney’s" advice,"Lt."Cobb"invoked"her"Fifth"Amendment"rights."Lt."Cobb"testified"that"in"the"time" between"her"interaction"with"Detective"Redford"at"VIPER"12"and"the"middle"of"trial,"she"had" had"no"further"involvement"with"this"case."" Following"Lt."Cobb’s"testimony"and"further"argument"by"the"State"and"Petitioner’s"trial" counsel,"the"trial"court"admitted"both"People’s"1"and"People’s"12"into"evidence."" On"March"12,"2014,"the"trial"court"found"Petitioner"guilty"of"second degree"burglary."On" May"1,"2014,"the"court"sentenced"him"to"three"and"a"half"years"in"prison,"followed"by"two"and"a" half"years"of"supervised"release."" C. Petitioner’s"Appeals"To"The"Appellate"Division"And"The"New"York"Court"Of"Appeals" Petitioner,"through"counsel,"appealed"his"conviction"to"the"Appellate"Division"on"three" grounds:"(1)"he"was"denied"a"fair"trial"as"a"result"of"the"trial"court"erroneously"admitting" People’s"1"and"People’s"12,"the"surveillance"videos,"into"evidence;"(2)"the"weight"of"the" evidence"did"not"support"the"element"of"unlawful"entry,"which"is"needed"for"a"burglary" 9 conviction;"and"(3)"the"State’s"untimely"disclosure"of"impeachment"evidence"violated"its" obligations"under"Brady"and"deprived"him"of"the"opportunity"to"use"the"materials"in"planning" his"defense."In"his"Appellate"Division"brief,"Petitioner"cited"to"the"federal"Constitution"in" support"of"his"argument"that"the"evidentiary"ruling"deprived"him"of"a"fair"trial,"but"did"not"cite" to"any"federal"law"in"connection"with"his"“weight"of"the"evidence”"argument."Petitioner"made" his"third"argument,"the"Brady"claim,"in"federal"terms."" On"March"31,"2016,"the"Appellate"Division"unanimously"affirmed"Petitioner’s"conviction" and"sentence."People"v."Cabrera,"137"A.D.3d"707"(1st"Dep’t"2016),"lv."denied,"27"N.Y.3d"1129" (2016)."The"Appellate"Division"first"held"that"the"State"had"laid"a"sufficient"foundation"upon" which"to"admit"the"video"footage"into"evidence."The"Appellate"Division"found"that"the"video" was"authenticated"by"a"“competent"police"witness,”"Lt."Cobb,"“who"testified"in"detail"about"the" videotaping"and"compilation"process.”"Id."at"707."Accordingly,"the"court"found"that"there"was" “no"reason"to"believe"that"the"compilation"was"incomplete"or"otherwise"unsatisfactory,”"and" further"concluded"that"there"was"“no"basis"for"disturbing"the"[trial]"court’s"credibility" determinations.”"Id."at"708."The"Appellate"Division"next"held"that"Petitioner’s"conviction"was" not"against"the"weight"of"the"evidence."Id."Finally,"the"Appellate"Division"held"that"Petitioner" had"not"demonstrated"that"he"was"prejudiced"by"the"State’s"mid trial"Brady"disclosure."Id."The" Appellate"Division"reasoned"that"the"State"had"not"originally"intended"to"call"Lt."Cobb,"but"that" it"“disclosed"the"impeachment"material"immediately"after"learning"that"this"witness’s"testimony" was"necessary"to"authenticate"the"videotape.”"Id."The"court"further"found"that"the"trial"court" provided"a"“suitable"remedy”"for"any"delayed"disclosure"by"offering"Petitioner"an"adjournment" 10 to"prepare"for"the"cross examination"of"Lt."Cobb,"a"“remedy"that"could"have"readily"been" implemented"in"a"nonjury"trial,"but"that"offer"was"declined.”"Id." On"April"6,"2016,"Petitioner"filed"an"application"for"leave"to"appeal"to"the"New"York" Court"of"Appeals."In"his"counseled"letter"to"the"Court"of"Appeals,"Petitioner"sought"review"of" the"following"three"issues:" ‚ ‚ ‚ “Whether"the"trial"court"improperly"admitted"a"surveillance"video"recording"that" had"been"spliced,"truncated,"and"stripped"of"its"time"stamps"and"whether"the" editor"of"the"video"was"credible.”" “Whether"the"weight"of"the"evidence"supported"the"element"of"unlawful"entry;" and”" “Whether"the"delayed"disclosure"of"Brady"material"violated"[Petitioner’s]"rights.”" (Doc."No."20 2"p."44.)"Petitioner"also"attached"copies"of"the"parties’"Appellate"Division" submissions,"as"well"as"a"copy"of"the"Appellate"Division’s"decision,"to"his"application"and"asked" the"Court"of"Appeals"to"“consider"and"review"all"issues"in"the"attached"briefs.”"(Doc."No."20 2"p." 44.)"On"June"9,"2016,"the"Court"of"Appeals"denied"Petitioner’s"request"for"leave"to"appeal." Cabrera,"27"N.Y.3d"1129." D. "Petitioner’s"Deportation"Proceedings" Petitioner"is"a"native"and"citizen"of"the"Dominican"Republic."On"May"14,"2015,"the"U.S." Department"of"Homeland"Security"(“DHS”)"served"Petitioner"with"Notice"to"Appear"for"removal" proceedings"under"Section"240"of"the"Immigration"and"Nationality"Act"(“INA”)."In"the"Notice"to" Appear,"which"appears"to"have"superseded"a"previous"Notice"issued"on"April"18,"2013,"DHS" charged"that"Petitioner"was"subject"to"removal"under"Section"212"of"the"INA"because"Petitioner" had"been"convicted"of"the"crime"of"attempted"criminal"possession"of"cocaine"on"January"8," 1998"in"the"Supreme"Court"of"New"York,"New"York"County."On"May"18,"2016,"DHS"lodged"an" 11 additional"charge"against"Petitioner"under"Section"237"of"the"INA"for"the"burglary"conviction"at" issue"in"this"Petition."On"August"30,"2016,"an"Immigration"Judge"ordered"that"Petitioner"be" removed"from"the"United"States"to"the"Dominican"Republic."Petitioner"is"currently"in"federal" custody"awaiting"a"determination"of"his"appeal"from"the"order"of"deportation."" E. "Petitioner’s"Petition"For"Writ"Of"Habeas"Corpus"And"Petition"For"Writ"Of"Error"Coram" Nobis" " On"October"6,"2016,"Petitioner"filed"his"Petition"for"writ"of"habeas"corpus"with"this" Court,"asserting"the"following"three"grounds"for"relief:"(1)"the"trial"court"erred"in"admitting"the" two"videos"into"evidence,"thus"depriving"him"of"a"fair"trial;"(2)"his"conviction"was"against"the" weight"of"the"evidence;"(3)"the"state"courts"erred"in"ruling"that"the"State"fulfilled"its"Brady" obligation"to"turn"over"impeachment"material"related"to"Lt."Cobb,"thus"depriving"him"of"his"due" process"rights."" Before"Respondent"filed"its"response,"Petitioner"submitted"a"second"petition"to"this" Court,"titled"as"a"petition"for"a"writ"of"error"coram"nobis."(Doc."No."15.)"In"this"second" submission,"Petitioner"restates"the"three"aforementioned"arguments,"but"also"adds"a"new"claim" of"ineffective"assistance"of"counsel."Relying"on"both"New"York"and"federal"law,"Petitioner" argues"that"his"trial"counsel’s"performance"was"constitutionally"deficient"because"she"failed"to" investigate"his"mental"state"and"raise"an"insanity"defense,"as"well"as"failed"to"inform"him"of"the" consequences"of"a"non jury"trial"–"specifically,"that"he"could"be"deported"if"convicted."Petitioner" asserts"that"had"he"known"this,"he"may"not"have"accepted"counsel’s"suggestion"to"waive"a"jury" and"proceed"to"a"bench"trial."Petitioner"also"faults"his"trial"counsel"for"failing"to"ask"the"trial" court"for"a"judicial"recommendation"against"deportation."" 12 On"April,"12,"2017,"the"Honorable"Judge"Katherine"Polk"Failla"ordered"that"Petitioner’s" second"submission"would"be"construed"as"an"attempt"to"amend"the"initial"Petition."(Doc."No." 14.)"The"Clerk"of"Court"subsequently"docketed"Petitioner’s"submission"as"an"amended"Petition" for"writ"of"habeas"corpus."Respondent"thereafter"filed"its"Response"to"the"Amended"Petition." DISCUSSION" I. LEGAL"STANDARD" A. Standard"For"Habeas"Review"" “The"statutory"authority"of"federal"courts"to"issue"habeas"corpus"relief"for"persons"in" state"custody"is"provided"by"28"U.S.C."§"2254,"as"amended"by"the"Antiterrorism"and"Effective" Death"Penalty"Act"of"1996"(AEDPA).”"Harrington"v."Richter,"562"U.S."86,"97"(2011)."A"state" prisoner"can"obtain"federal"habeas"relief"only"by"showing"that"the"state"court’s"decision"was" either"“contrary"to,"or"involved"an"unreasonable"application"of,"clearly"established"Federal"law," as"determined"by"the"Supreme"Court,”"or"resulted"in"a"decision"that"was"based"on"an" unreasonable"determination"of"the"facts"presented"to"the"state"court."28"U.S.C."§"2254(d)(1) (2)." “To"be"‘contrary"to’"clearly"established"law,"a"state"court"must"reach"a"conclusion"of"law" antithetical"to"a"conclusion"of"law"by"the"Supreme"Court,"or"decide"a"case"differently"than"the" Supreme"Court"has"when"the"two"cases"have"‘materially"indistinguishable"facts.’”"Rosario"v." Ercole,"601"F.3d"118,"123"(2d"Cir."2010)"(quoting"Williams"v."Taylor,"529"U.S."362,"412 13"(2000)" (O'Connor,"J.,"concurring))."In"the"AEDPA"context,"“clearly"established”"law"refers"to"“only"the" holdings,"as"opposed"to"the"dicta,"of"th[e]"[Supreme]"Court’s"decisions.”"Woods"v."Donald,"135" S."Ct."1372,"1376"(2015)"(citation"omitted)."It"is"not"enough"that"the"facts"of"a"case"are"“similar" 13 to”"those"at"issue"in"the"relevant"Supreme"Court"case—the"two"cases"must"involve"the"same" specific"question."Id."at"1377."" Once"the"clearly"established"Supreme"Court"holding"has"been"distilled,"“an" ‘unreasonable"application"of’"those"holdings"must"be"objectively"unreasonable,"not"merely" wrong;"even"clear"error"will"not"suffice.”"Id."at"1376."To"clear"the"high"bar"for"habeas"relief,"a" petitioner"must"establish"that"“the"state"court’s"ruling"on"the"claim"being"presented"in"federal" court"was"so"lacking"in"justification"that"there"was"an"error"well"understood"and"comprehended" in"existing"law"beyond"any"possibility"for"fairminded"disagreement.”"Harrington,"562"U.S."at" 103."" B. Exhaustion"And"Procedural"Default" Prior"to"seeking"federal"habeas"review,"a"petitioner"in"state"custody"is"required"to" exhaust"all"remedies"available"in"state"court."28"U.S.C."§"2254(b)(1);"see"also"Jackson"v."Conway," 763"F.3d"115,"133"(2d"Cir."2014)."This"means"that"a"petitioner"“must"give"the"state"courts"one" full"opportunity"to"resolve"any"constitutional"issues"by"invoking"one"complete"round"of"the" State’s"established"appellate"review"process.”"O’Sullivan"v."Boerckel,"526"U.S."838,"845"(1991)" (emphasis"added)."A"“complete"round,”"id.,"requires"the"petitioner"to"present"the"“essential" factual"and"legal"premises"of"his"federal"constitutional"claim"to"the"highest"state"court"capable" of"reviewing"it.”"Jackson,"763"F.3d"at"133"(citation"omitted);"see"also"Carvajal"v."Artus,"633"F.3d" 95,"104"(2d"Cir."2011)"(“[t]he"exhaustion"requirement"is"animated"by"notions"of"comity"between" the"federal"and"state"justice"systems”)"(internal"quotations"and"citation"omitted)." In"New"York,"a"state"prisoner"invokes"“one"complete"round”"of"appellate"review"by" appealing"first"to"the"Appellate"Division,"and"then"seeking"leave"to"appeal"to"the"State"Court"of" 14 Appeals."Galdamez"v."Keane,"394"F.3d"68,"74"(2d"Cir."2005)."The"Court"of"Appeals’"procedural" rules"require"that"a"criminal"leave"application"identify"“the"grounds"upon"which"leave"to"appeal" is"sought,”"as"well"as"annex"copies"of"the"submissions"and"relevant"decision"from"the"Appellate" Division."22"N.Y.C.R.R."§"500.20(a) (b).4"" When"a"habeas"petition"presents"unexhausted"claims,"the"federal"court"must"determine" whether"the"petitioner"would"be"able"to"return"to"state"court"to"exhaust"the"claims."Jackson," 763"F.3d"at"133."If"the"petitioner’s"claim"is"unexhausted"and"the"petitioner"cannot"obtain" further"review"of"those"claims"in"state"court"for"procedural"reasons,"then"the"federal"court"must" deem"the"claim"procedurally"defaulted."Carvajal,"633"F.3d"at"104"(quoting"Aparicio"v."Artuz,"269" F.3d"78,"90"(2d"Cir."2001));"see"also"Jackson,"763"F.3d"at"133"(“if"the"state"prisoner"fails"to" exhaust"his"state"remedies"in"a"manner"in"which,"were"he"to"return"to"the"state"courts"with"his" unexhausted"claim,"those"courts"would"find"the"claim"barred"by"the"application"of"a"state" procedural"rule,"we"must"deem"the"claim"procedurally"defaulted”)"(internal"quotations" omitted)."The"only"exceptions"to"this"rule"are"if"the"petitioner"establishes"either"“cause"for"the" default"and"prejudice”"or"that"he"is"“‘actually"innocent’"of"the"crime"for"which"he"was" convicted.”"Carvajal,"633"F.3d"at"104." " " 4 "However,"the"Supreme"Court"has"held"that"simply"because"a"state’s"highest"court"has"the"opportunity"to"review" such"documents,"it"does"not"mean"that"it"assumes"the"obligation"to"do"so."Baldwin"v."Reese,"541"U.S."27,"31 32" (2004);"see"also"Grey"v."Hoke,"933"F.2d"117,"120"(2d"Cir."1991)"(New"York"Court"of"Appeals"does"not"have"“a"duty"to" look"for"a"needle"in"a"paper"haystack,”"and"seek"out"claims"that"may"have"been"raised"in"a"lower"court)." 15 II. "ANALYSIS"OF"PETITIONER’S"CLAIMS" A. Admission"Of"The"Surveillance"Videos" Petitioner"first"argues"that"he"is"entitled"to"habeas"relief"because"the"trial"court"erred"in" admitting"the"surveillance"compilations,"People’s"1"and"12,"into"evidence,"and"that"this"error" deprived"him"of"his"constitutional"right"to"a"fair"trial."Specifically,"Petitioner"contends"that"the" surveillance"videos"should"not"have"been"admitted"because"they"lacked"a"proper"foundation" and"the"testimony"of"the"authenticating"witness—Lt."Cobb—was"not"credible."" 1. Exhaustion" This"Court"first"finds,"as"a"threshold"matter,"that"Petitioner"has"adequately"exhausted"his" challenge"to"the"admissibility"of"the"surveillance"videos."Petitioner"invoked"a"complete"round"of" appellate"review"in"state"court"by"arguing"this"claim"before"the"Appellate"Division"and"the"Court" of"Appeals."Before"the"Appellate"Division,"Petitioner"cited"to"the"Fourth"and"Fourteenth" Amendments"of"the"federal"Constitution"in"connection"with"his"argument"that"the"admission"of" the"video"deprived"him"of"his"due"process"right"to"a"fair"trial."Although"Petitioner’s"leave" application"to"the"Court"of"Appeals"did"not"specifically"reference"the"federal"nature"of"this" claim,"Petitioner’s"letter"clearly"stated"that"he"was"seeking"consideration"and"review"of"all"of" the"issues"raised"in"his"appellate"briefs,"which"would"include"his"claim"that"his"constitutional" rights"were"violated"by"the"evidentiary"ruling."See"Morgan"v."Bennett,"204"F.3d"360,"370 71"(2d" Cir."2000)"(petitioner"fairly"presented"his"claims"to"Court"of"Appeals"where"his"leave"application" expressly"sought"review"of"all"issues"raised"in"his"appellate"briefs);"Fisher"v."Superintendent,"No." 12 cv 6703"(JPO),"2014"WL"128015,"at"*6"(S.D.N.Y."Jan."14,"2014)"(adopting"Report"&" Recommendation"holding"the"same)." 16 2. Legal"Standard"Governing"Challenges"To"Evidentiary"Rulings"In"A"Habeas"Petition" Challenges"to"a"state"court’s"evidentiary"rulings,"even"if"erroneous,"concern"matters"of" state"law"and,"as"such,"are"not"cognizable"on"habeas"review."See"28"U.S.C."§"2254(a);"Estelle"v." McGuire,"502"U.S."62,"67 68"(1991)"(“[I]t"is"not"the"province"of"a"federal"habeas"court"to" reexamine"state court"determinations"on"state law"questions.”)."A"federal"court"cannot"grant" habeas"relief"as"a"result"of"an"allegedly"incorrect"evidentiary"ruling"“unless"the"alleged"errors" are"so"prejudicial"as"to"constitute"fundamental"unfairness,”"in"violation"of"the"petitioner’s" constitutional"right"to"due"process."Nunez"v."Conway,"923"F."Supp."2d"557,"568"(S.D.N.Y."2013);" see"also"Vega"v."Walsh,"669"F.3d"123,"126"(2d"Cir."2012)." In"assessing"whether"a"state"court’s"allegedly"erroneous"admission"of"evidence"deprived" a"petitioner"of"his"right"to"a"fair"trial,"federal"habeas"courts"consider"“(1)"whether"the"trial" court’s"evidentiary"ruling"was"erroneous"under"state"law,"and"(2)"whether"the"error"amounted" to"the"denial"of"the"constitutional"right"to"a"fundamentally"fair"trial”"under"clearly"established" Supreme"Court"precedent."Taylor"v."Connelly,"18"F."Supp."3d"242,"257"(E.D.N.Y."2014)"(citing" Wade"v."Mantello,"333"F.3d"51,"59 60"&"n."7"(2d"Cir."2003));"see"also"Evans"v."Fischer,"712"F.3d" 125,"133"(2d"Cir."2013)."Such"claims"are"a"“doubly"difficult"challenge”"because"“[t]he" combination"of"the"Supreme"Court’s"‘fundamental"fairness’"cases"and"the"limited"habeas" jurisdiction"granted"by"AEDPA”"means"that"Petitioner"must"(1)"establish"that"the"effect"of"the" admission"of"the"surveillance"video"was"so"prejudicial"to"his"defense"that"he"was"deprived"of" due"process"and"(2)"identify"a"Supreme"Court"case"that"clearly"establishes"that"the"admission"of" the"evidence"constitutes"a"violation"of"the"Fourteenth"Amendment."Evans,"712"F.3d"at"133." " " 17 3. Application"Of"The"Legal"Standard"To"Petitioner’s"Claims" Under"this"standard,"this"Court"cannot"conclude"that"the"admission"of"the"highly" probative"surveillance"video"evidence"violated"“those"fundamental"conceptions"of"justice"which" lie"at"the"base"of"our"civil"and"political"institutions"."."."and"which"define"the"community’s"sense" of"fair"play"and"decency.”"Dowling"v."United"States,"493"U.S."342,"353"(1990)"(internal" quotations"and"citations"omitted)." With"respect"to"the"first"prong"of"the"analysis—whether"the"admission"of"the" surveillance"video"was"erroneous—under"New"York"law,"“[t]he"decision"to"admit"or"exclude" videotape"evidence"generally"rests"."."."within"a"trial"court’s"founded"discretion.”"People"v." Patterson,"93"N.Y.2d"80,"84"(1999)."Video"evidence"“may"be"authenticated"by"the"testimony"of" a"witness"to"the"recorded"events"or"of"an"operator"or"installer"or"maintainer"of"the"equipment" that"the"videotape"accurately"represents"the"subject"matter"depicted.”"Id."" In"this"case,"the"Appellate"Division"held"that"the"State"had"established"a"sufficient" foundation"for"the"admission"of"the"surveillance"compilations"at"issue"in"this"Petition,"reasoning" that:" Authentication" was" provided" by" a" competent" police" witness" (see" People" v." Patterson,"93"N.Y.2d"80,"84"(1999)),"who"testified"in"detail"about"the"videotaping" and"compilation"process."[Lt."Cobb]"explained"that"she"viewed"several"hours"of" videotape" and" created" a" 30 minute" disc" that" included" all" the" footage" that" was" relevant"to"the"case,"that"is,"all"views"of"any"persons"involved"in"this"case"entering" and" leaving" the" building." There" is" no" basis" for" disturbing" the" court’s" credibility" determinations,"and"no"reason"to"believe"that"the"compilation"was"incomplete"or" otherwise"unsatisfactory." Cabrera,"137"A.D.3d"at"707 08."" This"Court"agrees"with"the"Appellate"Division’s"conclusion"that"the"trial"court"did"not" abuse"its"discretion"in"admitting"the"surveillance"video"into"evidence."Lt."Cobb"testified" 18 extensively"about"the"operating"procedures"and"technical"capacities"of"VIPER"12’s"surveillance" operations,"including"her"role"in"supervising"the"unit"and"in"creating"the"discs"that"were" admitted"into"evidence."As"the"“operator”"or"“maintainer”"of"the"surveillance"equipment,"Lt." Cobb’s"testimony"was"sufficient"to"authenticate"the"evidence"under"New"York"law."Patterson," 93"N.Y.2d"at"84;"see"also"Newman"v."Lempke,"No."13 cv 531"(RJA)"(MJR),"2016"WL"5478512,"at" *9"(W.D.N.Y."Aug."9,"2016)"(holding"that"the"admission"of"video"evidence"was"not"improper" under"New"York"law"and"recommending"denial"of"habeas"claim"for"that"reason),"adopted"by," 2016"WL"5468062"(W.D.N.Y."Sept."29,"2016);"Josey"v."Rock,"No."11 cv 3502"(JFB),"2012"WL" 1569615,"at"*13 14"(E.D.N.Y."May"3,"2012)"(testimony"from"the"operator"of"surveillance" equipment"was"sufficient"to"lay"a"foundation"for"the"admission"of"a"video"into"evidence)." Petitioner’s"claim"further"fails"because,"even"if"the"trial"court’s"evidentiary"rulings"were" erroneous,"he"cannot"demonstrate"that"the"admission"of"the"surveillance"videos"deprived"him" of"his"due"process"right"to"a"“fundamentally"fair"trial.”"Freeman"v."Kadien,"684"F.3d"30,"35"(2d" Cir."2012)."Where"the"purportedly"prejudicial"evidence"is"“probative"of"[an]"essential"element"in" the"case,"its"admission"does"not"violate"the"defendant’s"right"to"due"process.”"Dunnigan"v." Keane,"137"F.3d"117,"125"(2d"Cir."1998)"(internal"quotations"and"citation"omitted),"abrogated" on"other"grounds"by,"Perry"v."New"Hampshire,"565"U.S."228"(2012)."The"video"evidence"at"issue" in"this"case—which"depicted,"inter"alia,"Petitioner"leaving"the"apartment"building"carrying"the" victims’"belongings—was"highly"probative"of"the"elements"of"second degree"burglary"under" New"York"law."See"N.Y."PENAL"L."§"140.25.""" Even"if"the"evidence"were"only"of"tangential"relevance,"however,"demonstrating"that"the" erroneous"admission"of"evidence"amounts"to"a"denial"of"due"process"requires"that"the" 19 evidence,"viewed"objectively"in"light"of"the"entire"record,"must"have"been"“‘sufficiently"material" to"provide"the"basis"for"conviction"or"to"remove"a"reasonable"doubt"that"would"have"existed"on" the"record"without"it.’”"Dunnigan,"137"F.3d"at"125"(quotations"omitted);"see"also"Collins"v." Scully,"755"F.2d"16,"19"(2d"Cir."1985)"(holding"that"erroneously"introduced"evidence"must"be" “crucial,"critical,"highly"significant”)"(quotations"and"citation"omitted)."Here,"the"testimony"of" Ms."Sanchez"and"Ms."Ballista,"taken"alone,"provided"a"sufficient"basis"for"Petitioner’s"conviction." Ms."Sanchez"and"Ms."Ballista"encountered"Petitioner—an"individual"whom"they"had"known"for" a"significant"period"of"time—with"their"air"conditioner"in"the"hallway"outside"of"their"apartment" unit,"apparently"trying"to"cart"it"away."They"also"observed"Petitioner’s"demeanor"following"the" incident,"noting"that"he"was"“shaking"a"lot,”"seemed"“nervous,”"and"avoided"eye contact"with" them."(Doc."No."20 3"p."102.)"In"light"of"the"record,"there"is"no"basis"to"conclude"that"the" admission"of"the"evidence,"even"if"it"were"erroneous,"deprived"Petitioner"of"a"fair"trial."See" Josey,"2012"WL"1569615,"at"*13"(rejecting"a"claim"for"habeas"relief"premised"upon"the"allegedly" erroneous"admission"of"video"evidence)."" Petitioner"cites"to"two"reasons"why,"according"to"him,"the"admission"of"the"surveillance" video"evidence"was"fundamentally"unfair."First,"Petitioner"argues"that"the"evidence"was" misleading"and"unreliable"because"it"only"depicted"segments"of"the"original"surveillance" footage"and"it"did"not"bear"time"stamps."This"Court"disagrees."While"such"factors"may"affect" how"much"weight"the"evidence"is"afforded,"they"do"not"render"the"evidence"inadmissible."See" United"States"v."Whittingham,"346"F."App’x"683,"685"(2d"Cir."2009)"(discrepancies"with"the"time" stamps"in"a"video"“may"make"the"evidence"less"credible"to"the"jury,"but"it"does"not"make"it" inadmissible.”);"see"also"People"v."Carter,"131"A.D.3d"717,"721 22"(3d"Dep’t"2015)"(holding"that" 20 an"edited"surveillance"video"depicting"only"the"relevant"portions"of"the"footage"was" admissible)."At"trial,"Petitioner’s"counsel"vigorously"objected"to"the"introduction"of"People’s"1" and"12"at"various"points"during"the"proceedings."Since"Petitioner"opted"to"proceed"with"a" bench"trial,"the"trial"judge"was"aware"of"counsel’s"evidentiary"objections"and"could"consider" such"arguments"in"his"assessment"of"the"evidence"presented"against"Petitioner."Moreover," judges"are"trained"to"assess"and"critique"the"reliability"of"video"evidence"to"a"greater"extent" than"most"jurors,"which"further"mitigates"against"any"prejudicial"effect.""" Second,"Petitioner"argues"that"the"evidence"could"not"be"sufficiently"authenticated" because"Lt."Cobb’s"testimony"was"not"credible."Similar"to"Petitioner’s"first"argument,"“[t]he" credibility"of"the"authenticating"witness"and"any"motive"she"may"have"had"to"alter"the"evidence" go"to"the"weight"to"be"accorded"this"evidence,"rather"than"its"admissibility.”"People"v."Agudelo," 96"A.D.3d"611,"612"(1st"Dep’t"2012)"(citation"omitted)."And,"in"the"absence"of"clear"and" convincing"evidence"to"the"contrary,"this"Court"is"bound"by"the"factual"findings"of"the"state" court,"which"concluded"that"Lt."Cobb’s"testimony"was"sufficiently"credible"to"lay"the"foundation" for"the"admission"of"the"surveillance"footage."See"28"U.S.C."§"2254(e)(1)." In"sum,"this"Court"cannot"conclude"that"the"Appellate"Division’s"decision"regarding"the" admissibility"of"the"surveillance"video"was"“so"lacking"in"justification"that"there"was"an"error"."."." beyond"any"possibility"for"fairminded"disagreement.”"Harrington,"562"U.S."at"103."This"Court" therefore"recommends"dismissing"Petitioner’s"first"claim"for"habeas"relief." B. "“Weight"Of"The"Evidence”"Claim" " Petitioner’s"second"claim"is"that"the"trial’s"court"verdict"was"against"the"weight"of"the" evidence."Respondent"argues"that"this"claim"is"unexhausted"and,"furthermore,"is"not"cognizable" 21 on"habeas"review"because"it"does"not"present"any"federal"claim."This"Court"agrees"with" Respondent"that"Petitioner’s"”weight"of"the"evidence”"claim"is"unexhausted"and"procedurally" barred."" As"stated"above,"a"petitioner"must"“fairly"present"[his]"federal"claims"to"the"state"courts" in"order"to"give"the"State"the"opportunity"to"pass"upon"and"correct"alleged"violations"of"its" prisoners’"federal"rights.”"Duncan"v."Henry,"513"U.S."364,"365"(1995)"(emphasis"added)."A"state" prisoner"can"“fairly"present,”"id.,"his"claims"in"several"ways,"including"through:""" (a)" reliance" on" pertinent" federal" cases" employing" constitutional" analysis," (b)" reliance"on"state"cases"employing"constitutional"analysis"in"like"fact"situations,"(c)" assertion" of" the" claim" in" terms" so" particular" as" to" call" to" mind" a" specific" right" protected"by"the"Constitution,"and"(d)"allegation"of"a"pattern"of"facts"that"is"well" within"the"mainstream"of"constitutional"litigation." Carvajal,"633"F.3d"at"104"(citing"Daye"v."Att’y"Gen."of"New"York,"696"F.2d"186,"194"(2d"Cir." 1982))."“[A]"state"prisoner"is"not"required"to"cite"‘chapter"and"verse"of"the"Constitution’"in"order" to"satisfy"this"requirement,”"id."(citing"Daye,"626"F.2d"at"194),"but"“it"is"not"enough"to"make"a" general"appeal"to"a"constitutional"guarantee"as"broad"as"due"process"to"present"the"‘substance’" of"such"a"claim"to"a"state"court.”"Gray"v."Netherland,"518"U.S."152,"163"(1996)." Although"Petitioner"invoked"a"full"round"of"state"appellate"review"by"advancing"his" “weight"of"the"evidence”"claim"before"the"Appellate"Division"and"the"Court"of"Appeals," Petitioner"failed"to"fairly"present"the"federal"nature"of"this"claim"to"either"the"Appellate"Division" or"the"Court"of"Appeals."Petitioner’s"submissions"to"the"state"courts"did"not"refer"to"the"federal" Constitution,"cite"to"federal"case"law"or"state"law"cases"employing"a"federal"Constitutional" analysis,"or"otherwise"recite"a"pattern"of"facts"sufficient"to"apprise"the"state"courts"of"a" constitutional"claim"in"connection"with"his"“weight"of"the"evidence”"argument."Daye,"696"F.2d" 22 at"194;"see"also"Carvajal,"633"F.3d"at"106 07."This"Court"accordingly"concludes"that"this"claim"is" unexhausted." Since"Petitioner"failed"to"exhaust"this"claim,"the"Court"must"next"determine"whether" Petitioner"would"be"able"to"return"to"state"court"to"exhaust"it."This"Court"concludes"that"he" could"not."Petitioner"has"already"filed"one"application"for"leave"to"appeal"to"the"Court"of" Appeals,"and"New"York’s"procedural"rules"preclude"any"further"applications."See"N.Y.C.R.R."§" 500.20(a)(2)."Petitioner"also"does"not"have"any"basis"for"collateral"post conviction"review"in"the" state"courts"with"respect"to"this"claim"because"it"was"already"raised"before"the"Appellate" Division."See,"e.g.,"N.Y."C.P.L."§"440.10(2)(c)"(motions"to"vacate"the"judgment"cannot"be" premised"on"record based"claims"that"could"have"been"raised"on"direct"appeal);"N.Y."C.P.L."§" 440.20(2)"(motion"to"set"aside"a"criminal"defendant’s"sentence"must"be"denied"when"issue" raised"was"previously"determined"on"the"merits"on"direct"appeal)."Thus,"Petitioner’s"claim"is" procedurally"defaulted."Jackson,"763"F.3d"at"133."Petitioner"presents"no"basis"to"overcome"this" procedural"bar."He"offers"no"“cause"for"the"default"and"prejudice.”"Carvajal,"633"F.3d"at"104." Nor"has"he"shown"that"he"is"“actually"innocent”"of"the"underlying"crime."Id."Accordingly,"this" Court"recommends"that"Petitioner’s"“weight"of"the"evidence”"claim"be"dismissed.5" " " "Even"if"Petitioner’s"“weight"of"the"evidence”"claim"were"properly"exhausted,"it"would"nevertheless"fail"because" such"claims"are"not"a"basis"for"habeas"relief."See"McKinnon"v."Superintendent,"Great"Meadow"Corr."Facility,"422"F." App’x"69,"75"(2d"Cir."2011)"(“[t]he"argument"that"a"verdict"is"against"the"weight"of"the"evidence"states"a"claim" under"state"law,"which"is"not"cognizable"on"habeas"corpus”)"(citing"Estelle,"502"U.S."at"67 68);"Garrett"v."Perlman," 438"F."Supp."2d"467,"470"(S.D.N.Y."2006)"(“[u]nlike"a"sufficiency"of"the"evidence"claim,"which"is"based"upon"federal" due"process"principles,"a"weight"of"the"evidence"claim"is"an"error"of"state"law,"for"which"habeas"review"is"not" available”)"(internal"citations"omitted)."" 5 23 C. Untimely"Brady"Disclosure"Claim"" " Petitioner"next"argues"that"the"State’s"untimely"disclosure"of"impeachment"material" regarding"Lt."Cobb"precluded"him"from"using"the"material"in"planning"his"defense,"and"thus" deprived"him"of"his"due"process"rights."In"opposition,"Respondent"contends"that"the"Appellate" Division"reasonably"applied"Supreme"Court"law"in"rejecting"Petitioner’s"Brady"claim."" " Petitioner"raised"his"Brady"claim"in"his"Appellate"Division"brief"and"in"his"letter"to"the" Court"of"Appeals,"referring"to"Brady"by"name."The"Court"finds"that"Petitioner"fairly"presented" this"claim"to"both"the"Appellate"Division"and"the"Court"of"Appeals,"and,"accordingly,"it"is"fully" exhausted."" 1. "Legal"Standard"Governing"Brady"Claims"In"A"Habeas"Petition" " The"State’s"duty"to"disclose"evidence"favorable"to"the"defendant"in"a"criminal" proceeding"is"well rooted"and"dates"back"at"least"as"far"as"the"early"20th"century."Kyles"v." Whitley,"514"U.S."419,"432"(1995)."In"Brady,"the"landmark"case"in"this"line"of"jurisprudence,"the" Supreme"Court"held"that"the"prosecution’s"failure"to"disclose"to"the"defense"all"material," exculpatory"evidence"violates"a"criminal"defendant’s"right"to"due"process."373"U.S."at"87" (holding"that"“suppression"by"the"Prosecution"of"evidence"favorable"to"an"accused"upon" request"violates"due"process"where"the"evidence"is"material"either"to"guilt"or"to"punishment," irrespective"of"the"good"faith"or"bad"faith"of"the"Prosecution.”)."Under"Brady,"the"State"is"also" required"to"disclose"information"that"could"be"used"to"impeach"a"government"witness."See" Giglio"v."United"States,"405"U.S."150,"154 55"(1972)."Brady"disclosure"obligations"exist"“whether" or"not"the"defense"requests"exculpatory"evidence.”"Lewis"v."Conn."Comm’r"of"Corr.,"790"F.3d" 109,"121"(2d"Cir."2015)"(citing"United"States"v."Bagley,"473"U.S."667,"681 82"(1985);"Giglio,"405" 24 U.S."at"154 55)."However,"“[i]t"does"not"follow"from"the"prohibition"against"concealing"evidence" favorable"to"the"accused"that"the"Prosecution"must"reveal"before"trial"the"names"of"all" witnesses"who"will"testify"unfavorably."There"is"no"general"constitutional"right"to"discovery"in"a" criminal"case,"and"Brady"did"not"create"one.”"Weatherford"v."Bursey,"429"U.S."545,"559"(1977)."" " “There"are"three"components"of"a"."."."Brady"violation:"[i]"The"evidence"at"issue"must"be" favorable"to"the"accused,"either"because"it"is"exculpatory,"or"because"it"is"impeaching;"[ii]"that" evidence"must"have"been"suppressed"by"the"State,"either"willfully"or"inadvertently;"and"[iii]" prejudice"must"have"ensued.”"Lewis,"790"F.3d"at"123"(internal"quotations"and"citations" omitted)."To"establish"prejudice,"a"petitioner"generally"“must"show"that"the"[withheld]"evidence" was"material.”"Id."at"124."As"the"Supreme"Court"has"explained:" a"showing"of"materiality"does"not"require"demonstration"by"a"preponderance"that" disclosure" of" the" suppressed" evidence" would" have" resulted" ultimately" in" the" defendant’s" acquittal" ." ." ." ." [The]" touchstone" of" materiality" is" a" “reasonable" probability”"of"a"different"result,"and"the"adjective"is"important."The"question"is" not"whether"the"defendant"would"more"likely"than"not"have"received"a"different" verdict" with" the" evidence," but" whether" in" its" absence" he" received" a" fair" trial," understood"as"a"trial"resulting"in"a"verdict"worthy"of"confidence."A"“reasonable" probability”" of" a" different" result" is" accordingly" shown" when" the" government’s" evidentiary"suppression"“undermines"confidence"in"the"outcome"of"the"trial.”"" Kyles,"514"U.S."at"434"(internal"citations"omitted).""" " The"question"of"when"the"State"must"comply"with"its"disclosure"obligations"is" intertwined"with"two"elements"of"a"Brady"violation:"whether"there"was"prejudice"and"whether" there"has"been"a"“suppression”"of"evidence."See"United"States"v."Coppa,"267"F.3d"132,"142"(2d" Cir."2001);"Leka"v."Portuondo,"257"F.3d"89,"103"(2d"Cir."2001)."As"the"Second"Circuit"has"noted," “[i]t"is"not"feasible"or"desirable"to"specify"the"extent"or"timing"of"disclosure"Brady"and"its" progeny"require,"except"in"terms"of"the"sufficiency,"under"the"circumstances,"of"the"defense’s" 25 opportunity"to"use"the"evidence"when"disclosure"is"made.”"Leka,"257"F.3d"at"100"(citations" omitted)."“Thus"disclosure"prior"to"trial"is"not"mandated.”"Id.;"see"also"United"States"v."Espinal," 96"F."Supp."3d"53,"66"(S.D.N.Y."2015)"(“A"defendant"has"no"constitutional"right"to"receive"Brady" material"prior"to"trial.”)"(citation"omitted)."Rather,"it"is"a"“longstanding"constitutional"principle" that"as"long"as"a"defendant"possesses"Brady"evidence"in"time"for"its"effective"use,"the" government"has"not"deprived"the"defendant"of"due"process"of"law"simply"because"it"did"not" produce"the"evidence"sooner.”"Coppa,"267"F.3d"at"144." 2. Application"Of"Brady"To"Petitioner’s"Habeas"Claim" " Under"this"standard,"this"Court"finds"that"the"Appellate"Division"did"not"ignore"or" unreasonably"apply"clearly"established"federal"law"in"finding"that"Petitioner"was"not"prejudiced" by"the"State’s"belated"disclosure"of"impeachment"material"regarding"Lt."Cobb."Although"the" Appellate"Division"did"not"specifically"cite"to"Brady"in"its"analysis,"its"opinion"clearly"stated"that" it"was"rejecting"Petitioner’s"Brady"claim"due"to"lack"of"prejudice,"which"is"an"element"of"a"Brady" violation."Cabrera,"137"A.D.3d"at"708;"see"also"Hawthorne"v."Schneiderman,"695"F.3d"192,"196" (2d"Cir."2012)"(where"a"state"appellate"court"decides"an"issue"of"federal"law"in"a"summary" fashion,"federal"courts"exercise"AEDPA"deference"by"asking"first,"“what"arguments"or"theories"." ."."could"have"supported"the"decision"of"the"state"court,"and"second,"whether"it"is"possible"fair minded"jurists"could"disagree"that"those"arguments"or"theories"are"inconsistent"with"the" holding"in"a"prior"decision"of"[the"Supreme]"Court.”)"(internal"quotations"and"citation"omitted)."" As"set"forth"above,"a"criminal"defendant"will"not"be"prejudiced"by"the"belated"disclosure" of"impeachment"materials"so"long"as"he"“possess[ed]"Brady"evidence"in"time"for"its"effective" use”"at"trial."Coppa,"267"F.3d"at"144."Here,"the"Appellate"Division"held"that"this"requirement" 26 was"satisfied"and"that"Petitioner"had"sufficient"time"to"use"the"impeachment"evidence"in"cross examining"Lt."Cobb."Cabrera,"137"A.D.3d"at"708."This"Court"agrees"with"the"conclusion"of"the" Appellate"Division."The"State"explained"it"had"not"originally"intended"to"call"Lt."Cobb"as"a" witness"because"it"thought"it"could"lay"a"sufficient"foundation"for"introduction"of"the" surveillance"video"without"her."At"trial,"as"soon"as"it"became"apparent"to"the"State"that"the" maker"of"the"video"would"have"to"be"called"and"it"learned"the"identity"of"that"person,"it" disclosed"the"impeachment"materials."Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"was"able"to"use"the"disclosures" to"try"to"challenge"Lt."Cobb’s"credibility,"including"by"questioning"Lt."Cobb"about"the"removal"of" her"shield,"being"placed"on"modified"assignment,"and"being"under"indictment"in"an"unrelated" case."" Moreover,"as"the"Appellate"Division"observed,"“[t]he"[trial]"court"provided"a"suitable" remedy"[to"any"potential"prejudice]"when"it"offered"defendant"an"adjournment"to"prepare"for" cross examination,"a"remedy"that"could"have"readily"been"implemented"in"a"nonjury"trial,"but" that"offer"was"declined.”6"Id."Under"such"circumstances,"the"considerations"of"due"process"and" fundamental"fairness"that"underlie"Brady"are"not"called"into"question."See"California"v." Trombetta,"467"U.S."479,"485"(1984);"United"States"v."Diaz,"922"F.2d"998,"1007"(2d"Cir."1990);" Espinal,"96"F."Supp."3d"at"69"(although"the"government"unreasonably"delayed"in"handing"over" material"evidence,"defendant"was"not"prejudiced"because"he"was"offered"and"accepted" numerous"adjournments"of"the"trial);"Acosta"v."Miller,"No."04 cv 7963"(GEL),"2005"WL"3358673," "For"the"same"reasons,"Petitioner"also"has"failed"to"establish"that"the"Appellate"Division’s"finding"of"no"prejudice" was"based"on"an"unreasonable"determination"of"the"facts."See"28"U.S.C."§"2254(d)."Under"this"second"prong"of" Section"2254(d),"the"state"court’s"factual"findings"are"presumed"to"be"correct,"unless"the"petitioner"is"able"to"rebut" this"presumption"by"“clear"and"convincing"evidence.”"28"U.S.C."§"2254(e)(1);"see"also"Nelson"v."Walker,"121"F.3d" 828,"833"(2d"Cir."1997)."Petitioner"has"not"met"this"exacting"standard." 6 27 at"*1"(S.D.N.Y."Nov."30,"2005)"(although"habeas"petitioner"did"not"receive"Brady"material"until" mid trial,"petitioner"was"not"prejudiced"because"he"received"material"soon"enough"to"be"“able" to"exploit"whatever"exculpatory"value"the"material"had”);"Gonzalez"v."Bradt,"No."6:13 cv 6574" (MAT),"2014"WL"1355448,"at"*9"(W.D.N.Y."Apr."7,"2014)"(holding"that"habeas"petitioner"could" not"establish"that"he"was"prejudiced"by"delayed"Brady"disclosures"where"defense"counsel" declined"the"court’s"offer"of"time"to"investigate"the"newly"disclosed"information)."" Petitioner"argues"that"earlier"disclosures"about"Lt."Cobb"could"have"affected"his"trial" strategy,"including"his"decision"to"waive"a"jury"trial."He"contends"that"“[d]efense"counsel"might" have"reasonably"concluded"that"the"impeachment"evidence"would"have"been"more"effective"in" front"of"a"jury"rather"than"a"judge.”"(Doc."No."15"p."27.)"Due"process"is"not"implicated,"however," “unless"there"is"a"reasonable"probability"that"earlier"disclosure"of"the"evidence"would"have" produced"a"different"result"at"trial.”"Coppa,"267"F.3d"at"144"(citations"omitted)."Petitioner" presents"no"factual"basis"to"suggest"that"he"would"have"in"fact"proceeded"with"a"jury"trial"if"the" impeachment"evidence"was"disclosed"earlier;"he"simply"states"that"counsel"may"have"thought" that"a"jury"would"be"more"receptive"to"this"particular"evidence."However,"even"if"Petitioner" could"establish"that"he"would"have"opted"for"trial"by"jury,"there"is"no"reason"to"believe"that"a" jury"trial"would"have"resulted"in"a"different"outcome"given"the"State’s"evidence"against" Petitioner."The"evidence"presented"to"a"jury,"including"the"surveillance"footage"of"Petitioner" entering"the"apartment"building"empty handed"and"leaving"with"the"victims’"personal" belongings"in"his"hand,"as"well"as"the"testimony"of"Ms."Sanchez"and"Ms."Ballista"regarding"their" encounter"with"Petitioner"on"the"day"of"the"incident,"would"have"been"as"convincing"to"a"jury"as" to"a"judge." 28 Under"AEDPA’s"standard"of"review,"this"Court"cannot"find"that"the"Appellate"Division’s" determinations"are"objectively"unreasonable"or"contrary"to"federal"law."Accordingly,"this"Court" recommends"dismissing"Petitioner’s"third"ground"for"habeas"relief."" D. Ineffective"Assistance"Of"Counsel" " Finally,"Petitioner"argues"that"his"trial"counsel’s"performance"before"and"during"trial"was" so"deficient"that"he"was"deprived"of"his"Sixth"Amendment"right"to"assistance"of"counsel." Specifically,"Petitioner"contends"that"his"trial"counsel"erred"by:"(1)"failing"to"investigate"whether" he"was"suffering"from"any"mental"illnesses"that"could"have"been"the"basis"for"an"insanity" defense;"(2)"failing"to"inform"him"that"a"conviction"for"second degree"burglary"would"subject" him"to"deportation;"and"(3)"failing"to"ask"for"a"JRAD."" Respondent"argues"in"its"opposition"that"this"claim"is"unexhausted,"and"asks"the"Court" to"dismiss"it"as"“plainly"meritless”"under"28"U.S.C."§"2254(b)(2)"and"Rhines"v."Weber,"544"U.S." 269"(2005)."Respondent"argues"that"Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"represented"him"vigorously,"and" that"“[t]he"fact"of"[P]etitioner’s"conviction"was"not"a"reflection"of"[defense"counsel’s]"efforts"."."." .”"(Doc."No."22"p."32.)" 1. Exhaustion" " Petitioner’s"ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"claim,"asserted"for"the"first"time"on"habeas" review,"is"plainly"unexhausted."Petitioner"did"not"raise"this"argument"before"the"Appellate" Division"or"the"Court"of"Appeals."As"a"result,"Petitioner"failed"to"“give"the"state"courts"one"full" opportunity"to"resolve"any"constitutional"issues"by"invoking"one"complete"round"of"the"State’s" established"appellate"review"process.”"O’Sullivan,"526"U.S."at"845." 29 Unlike"his"first"two"claims"for"habeas"relief,"however,"Petitioner"may"return"to"state" court"and"exhaust"his"ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"claims"by"filing"a"motion"to"vacate"the" judgement"under"New"York"Criminal"Procedure"Law"Section"440.10."Under"Section"440.10,"a" state"prisoner"may"raise"arguments"that"may"not"be"raised"on"direct"appeal"and"may"be"based" upon"facts"and"claims"outside"the"record."N.Y."C.P.L."§"440.10(1)(f)."Thus,"Petitioner’s"ineffective" assistance"of"counsel"claims"are"not"procedurally"barred"because"he"could"return"to"state"court" to"seek"collateral"review"of"these"new"claims." Nevertheless,"under"the"AEDPA,"a"federal"habeas"court"may"deny"a"claim"on"the"merits" “notwithstanding"the"failure"of"the"applicant"to"exhaust"the"remedies"available"in"the"courts"of" the"State.”"28"U.S.C."§"2254(b)(2)."For"the"reasons"that"follow,"this"Court"finds"that"Petitioner’s" ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"claims"are"clearly"meritless"and"should"be"dismissed."" 2. Legal"Standard"Governing"Ineffective"Assistance"Of"Counsel"Claims"In"A"Habeas" Petition" The"Sixth"Amendment"of"the"U.S."Constitution"provides"that"a"criminal"defendant"“shall" enjoy"the"right"."."."to"have"the"Assistance"of"Counsel"for"his"defence.”"U.S."CONST."amend."VI." Habeas"petitions"asserting"claims"for"ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"are"analyzed"under"the" “clearly"established”"federal"law"standard"set"forth"in"Strickland"v."Washington,"466"U.S."668" (1984)."See"also"Chaidez"v."United"States,"133"S.Ct."1103,"1107 08"(2013)"(noting"that"Strickland" “provides"sufficient"guidance"for"resolving"virtually"all"claims"of"ineffective"assistance,"even" though"their"particular"circumstances"will"differ”)"(internal"quotations"and"citation"omitted)." Under"Strickland,"a"petitioner"claiming"ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"in"violation"of"the"Sixth" Amendment"must"establish"both"elements"of"a"two pronged"test:"(1)"that"his"counsel’s" representation"“fell"below"an"objective"standard"of"reasonableness,”"and"(2)"“that"there"is"a" 30 reasonable"probability"that,"but"for"counsel’s"unprofessional"errors,"the"result"of"the" proceeding"would"have"been"different.”"466"U.S."at"688,"692 94.7""" Under"the"first"prong"of"the"Strickland"test,"counsel"is"considered"ineffective"when"his"or" her"efforts"fall"“below"an"objective"standard"of"reasonableness.”"Williams,"529"U.S."at"390 91"(quoting"Strickland,"466"U.S."at"688)."Petitioner"bears"the"burden"of"demonstrating"that" counsel’s"errors"were"“so"serious"that"counsel"was"not"functioning"as"the"‘counsel’"guaranteed" [to]"the"defendant"by"the"Sixth"Amendment.”"Harrington,"562"U.S."at"104"(citation"omitted)." This"standard"is"intentionally"high"because"ineffective"assistance"claims"“are"quite"often"the" law’s"equivalent"of"‘buyer’s"remorse’"or"‘Monday"morning"quarterbacking’"..."[and"d]ecisions"by" criminal"defense"counsel"are"often"choices"among"bad"alternatives".".".".”"Mui"v."United"States," 614"F.3d"50,"57"(2d"Cir."2010)."Because"ineffective"assistance"of"counsel"claims"“can"function"as" a"way"to"escape"rules"of"waiver"and"forfeiture"and"raise"issues"not"presented"at"trial,"."."."the" Strickland"standard"must"be"applied"with"scrupulous"care,"lest"‘intrusive"post trial"inquiry’" threaten"the"integrity"of"the"very"adversary"process"the"right"to"counsel"is"meant"to"serve.”" Harrington,"562"U.S."at"105"(citing"Strickland,"466"U.S."at"689 90)."In"applying"Strickland,"the" Court"“must"indulge"a"strong"presumption"that"counsel’s"conduct"falls"within"the"wide"range"of" reasonable"professional"assistance;"that"is,"the"defendant"must"overcome"the"presumption" that,"under"the"circumstances,"the"challenged"action"might"be"considered"sound"trial"strategy.”" Strickland,"466"U.S."at"689"(internal"quotations"and"citation"omitted)." "The"Court"in"Strickland"explained"that"“[t]he"benchmark"for"judging"any"claim"of"ineffectiveness"must"be"whether" counsel’s"conduct"so"undermined"the"proper"functioning"of"the"adversarial"process"that"the"trial"cannot"be"relied" on"as"having"produced"a"just"result.”"Id."at"686."The"Court"further"acknowledged"that"“[t]here"are"countless"ways" to"provide"effective"assistance"in"any"given"case,”"and"that"“[e]ven"the"best"criminal"defense"attorneys"would"not" defend"a"particular"client"in"the"same"way.”"Id."at"689."" 7 31 A"petitioner"can"demonstrate"prejudice"by"proving"that"“there"is"a"reasonable" probability"that,"but"for"counsel’s"unprofessional"errors,"the"result"of"the"proceeding"would" have"been"different."A"reasonable"probability"is"a"probability"sufficient"to"undermine" confidence"in"the"outcome.”"Williams,"529"U.S."at"391"(internal"quotations"omitted)."Thus,"in" determining"whether"a"defendant"or"habeas"petitioner"has"suffered"prejudice"as"a"result"of"his" counsel’s"allegedly"unreasonable"acts"or"omissions,"“the"question"is"not"whether"a"court"can"be" certain"counsel’s"performance"had"no"effect"on"the"outcome"or"whether"it"is"possible"a" reasonable"doubt"might"have"been"established"if"counsel"acted"differently"."."."."Instead," Strickland"asks"whether"it"is"‘reasonably"likely’"the"result"would"have"been"different.”" Harrington,"562"U.S."at"111"(citations"omitted)."In"other"words,"the"“question"is"whether"there" is"a"reasonable"probability"that,"absent"the"errors,"the"fact"finder"would"have"had"a"reasonable" doubt"respecting"guilt.”"Strickland,"466"U.S."at"695;"see"also"United"States"v."Thornhill,"34"F." Supp."3d"334,"360"(S.D.N.Y."2014)"(it"is"not"enough"to"show"that"counsel’s"act"or"omission"had" some"effect"on"the"outcome"of"the"case,"“as"virtually"every"act"or"omission"of"counsel"would" meet"that"test"."."."”)"(quoting"Strickland,"466"U.S."at"693)." “Failure"to"make"the"required"showing"of"either"deficient"performance"or"sufficient" prejudice"defeats"the"ineffectiveness"claim.”"Strickland,"466"U.S."at"700."Thus,"“there"is"no" reason"for"a"court"deciding"an"ineffective"assistance"claim"to"approach"the"inquiry"in"the"same" order"or"even"to"address"both"components"of"the"inquiry"if"the"defendant"makes"an"insufficient" showing"on"one.”"Id."at"697." " " 32 3. Application"Of"Strickland"To"Petitioner’s"Ineffective"Assistance"Of"Counsel"Argument" Regarding"Counsel’s"Failure"To"Pursue"An"Insanity"Defense" " Petitioner"first"argues"that"his"trial"counsel"was"ineffective"for"failing"to"investigate"or" pursue"an"insanity"defense."In"New"York,"it"is"an"affirmative"defense"to"the"prosecution"of"a" crime"that"at"the"time"the"defendant"engaged"in"the"proscribed"conduct,"he"lacked"substantial" capacity"to"know"or"appreciate"the"nature"of"his"conduct,"or"that"his"conduct"was"wrong," because"of"a"mental"disease"or"defect."N.Y."PENAL"L."§"40.15."To"prevail"on"an"insanity"defense,"a" defendant"bears"the"burden"of"demonstrating"his"insanity"by"a"preponderance"of"the"evidence." See"People"v."Kohl,"72"N.Y.2d"191,"195"(1988)."" Addressing"the"first"prong"of"the"Strickland"test,"the"Supreme"Court"has"stated"that"it" “has"never"required"defense"counsel"to"pursue"every"."."."defense,"regardless"of"its"merit," viability,"or"realistic"chance"for"success.”"Knowles"v."Mirzayance,"556"U.S."111,"123"(2009)." While"criminal"defense"counsel"has"“a"duty"to"make"reasonable"investigations"or"to"make"a" reasonable"decision"that"makes"particular"investigations"unnecessary,”"Strickland,"466"U.S."at" 691,"“[i]n"any"ineffectiveness"case,"a"particular"decision"not"to"investigate"must"be"directly" assessed"for"reasonableness"in"all"the"circumstances,"applying"a"heavy"measure"of"deference"to" counsel’s"judgments.”"Id."“[S]trategic"choices"made"after"thorough"investigation"of"law"and" facts"relevant"to"plausible"options"are"virtually"unchallengeable,"."."."and"even"strategic"choices" made"after"less"than"complete"investigation"do"not"amount"to"ineffective"assistance—so"long" as"the"known"facts"made"it"reasonable"to"believe"that"further"investigation"was"unnecessary.”" Rosario,"601"F.3d"at"129 30"(citations"omitted)." " In"this"case,"Petitioner"has"not"pointed"to"anything"in"the"record"to"suggest"that"counsel" erred"in"failing"to"investigate"whether"he"had"an"insanity"affirmative"defense."Nor"has"he" 33 alleged"any"new"facts"to"support"his"conclusory"assertion"that"trial"counsel"should"have" considered"or"pursued"such"a"defense."Indeed,"nothing"in"the"record"even"suggests"that" Petitioner"suffered"from"a"mental"disease"or"defect,"much"less"one"that"was"significant"enough" to"predicate"a"potentially"viable"insanity"defense."The"law"is"clear"that"trial"counsel"in"a"criminal" case"is"not"required"to"pursue"an"affirmative"defense"that"does"not"appear"to"have"any"factual" support,"or"that"trial"counsel"should"subject"her"client"to"rigorous"psychiatric"testing"when"there" is"no"reason"to"believe"that"her"client"was"suffering"from"mental"illness."As"a"result,"there"is"no" basis"for"this"Court"to"conclude"that"it"was"unreasonable"for"counsel"to"have"failed"to" investigate"or"raise"this"potential"affirmative"defense."" As"to"the"second"prong"of"the"Strickland"test,"Petitioner"also"cannot"demonstrate"that" he"suffered"prejudice"because"of"counsel’s"decision"not"to"pursue"an"insanity"defense."In"order" to"show"prejudice,"Petitioner"must"establish"that"there"was"a"reasonable"probability"that"he" could"have"prevailed"upon"this"defense"had"he"pursued"it."Knowles,"556"U.S."at"127 28." Petitioner"has"failed"to"make"this"showing"here"because"there"is"no"reason"to"believe"that"he" would"have"succeeded"on"any"potentially"insanity"defense." 4. Application"Of"Strickland"To"Petitioner’s"Ineffective"Assistance"Of"Counsel"Arguments" Regarding"His"Waiver"Of"A"Jury"Trial"" Petitioner"next"contends"that"his"trial"counsel"was"ineffective"for"failing"to"inform"him" that"he"would"be"subject"to"deportation"if"found"guilty"of"burglary."Petitioner"suggests"that"if" his"trial"counsel"had"properly"advised"him"of"the"immigration"consequences"of"a"conviction,"he" may"not"have"waived"his"right"to"a"jury"trial." Respondent"contends"that"Petitioner"did"not"suffer"prejudice"from"trial"counsel’s"alleged" failure"to"advise"of"the"immigration"repercussions"of"a"possible"conviction"because"Petitioner" 34 was"already"subject"to"deportation"on"account"of"his"prior"conviction"for"the"attempted" possession"of"cocaine."This"position"misstates"the"applicable"standard."The"question"this"Court" must"answer"is"not,"as"Respondent"asserts,"whether"Petitioner"would"have"been"subject"to" deportation"irrespective"of"whether"trial"counsel"informed"Petitioner"of"the"immigration"risks" he"faced,"but"rather"whether"“but"for"counsel’s"unprofessional"errors,"the"result"of"the"[trial" court]"proceeding"would"have"been"different.”"Strickland,"466"U.S."at"694."Put"differently,"the" relevant"inquiry"is"whether"there"is"a"reasonable"probability"that,"if"Petitioner"had"known"about" the"immigration"consequences"of"a"conviction,"he"would"have"(1)"decided"not"to"waive"his"right" to"a"jury"trial"and"(2)"been"found"not"guilty"by"a"jury."" Addressing"this"question,"the"Court"finds"that"Petitioner"cannot"establish"prejudice"from" counsel’s"alleged"error."First,"Petitioner"does"not"assert"that"he"would"have"opted"to"proceed" with"a"jury"trial"if"his"counsel"had"advised"him"that"he"would"be"subject"to"deportation"as"a" result"of"any"conviction."If"Petitioner"would"have"waived"his"right"to"a"jury"trial"even"absent"the" alleged"error,"then"the"results"of"the"bench"trial"would"have"been"exactly"the"same."See"id."Nor" is"there"any"reason"to"suppose"that"the"outcome"of"the"trial"would"have"been"different"if" Petitioner"had"proceeded"with"a"jury"trial"for"the"reasons"set"forth"above"in"Section"C."Thus," even"absent"trial"counsel’s"alleged"errors,"the"Court"finds"that"there"is"no"reasonable"basis"to" conclude"that"the"proceedings"would"have"resulted"in"a"different"outcome."Id." 5. Application"Of"Strickland"To"Petitioner’s"Ineffective"Assistance"Of"Counsel"Arguments" Regarding"Counsel’s"Failure"To"Ask"For"A"JRAD" Finally,"this"Court"rejects"Petitioner’s"argument"that"counsel"was"ineffective"for"failing"to" ask"the"trial"court"for"a"recommendation"against"deportation."As"the"Supreme"Court"has"stated," “the"JRAD"procedure"is"no"longer"part"of"our"law.”"Padilla"v."Kentucky,"559"U.S."356,"363"(2010)" 35 (explaining"that"Congress"eliminated"the"JRAD"provision"of"the"immigration"law"in"1990"and" also"eliminated"the"Attorney"General’s"authority"to"grant"discretionary"relief"from"deportation)." If"a"noncitizen"is"convicted"of"a"removable"offense,"removal"is"practically"inevitable"but"for"the" exercise"of"what"little"equitable"discretion"the"Attorney"General"retains"to"cancel"removal"for" noncitizens"convicted"of"particular"classes"of"offenses."Id."at"363 64."Therefore,"there"is"no"basis" to"conclude"that"Petitioner’s"trial"counsel"acted"unreasonably"in"failing"to"request"a"JRAD"when" such"relief"was"plainly"unavailable." CONCLUSION" For"the"foregoing"reasons,"this"Court"concludes,"and"respectfully"recommends,"that"the" Petition"be"dismissed"in"its"entirety."" Date:" October"13,"2017" New"York,"New"York" ___________________________" KATHARINE"H."PARKER United"States"Magistrate"Judge" NOTICE" Petitioner"shall"have"seventeen"days"from"the"service"of"this"Report"and"Recommendation"to" file"written"objections"pursuant"to"28"U.S.C."§"636(b)(1)"and"Rule"72(b)"of"the"Federal"Rules"of" Civil"Procedure"(i.e.,"until"October"30,"2017)."See"also"Fed."R."Civ."P."6(a),"(d)"(adding"three" additional"days"only"when"service"is"made"under"Fed."R."Civ."P."5(b)(2)(C)"(mail),"(D)"(leaving" with"the"clerk),"or"(F)"(other"means"consented"to"by"the"parties))."Respondent"shall"have" fourteen"days"from"the"service"of"this"Report"and"Recommendation"to"file"written"objections" pursuant"to"28"U.S.C."§"636(b)(1)"and"Rule"72(b)"of"the"Federal"Rules"of"Civil"Procedure"(i.e.," until"October"24,"2017)." If"Petitioner"files"written"objections"to"this"Report"and"Recommendation,"Respondent"may" respond"to"Petitioner’s"objections"within"fourteen"days"after"being"served"with"a"copy."Fed." R."Civ."P."72(b)(2)."Alternatively,"if"Respondent"files"written"objections,"Petitioner"may" respond"to"such"objections"within"seventeen"days"after"being"served"with"a"copy."Fed."R."Civ." P."72(b)(2);"see"also"Fed."R."Civ."P."6(a),"(d)."Such"objections"shall"be"filed"with"the"Clerk"of"the" 36 Court,"with"courtesy"copies"delivered"to"the"chambers"of"the"Honorable"Katherine"Polk"Failla" at"the"United"States"Courthouse,"40"Foley"Square,"New"York,"New"York"10007,"and"to"any" opposing"parties."See"28"U.S.C."§"636(b)(1);"Fed."R."Civ."P."6(a),"6(d),"72(b)."Any"requests"for"an" extension"of"time"for"filing"objections"must"be"addressed"to"Judge"Failla."The"failure"to"file" these"timely"objections"will"result"in"a"waiver"of"those"objections"for"purposes"of"appeal."See" 28"U.S.C."§"636(b)(1);"Fed."R."Civ."P."6(a),"6(d),"72(b);"Thomas"v."Arn,"474"U.S."140"(1985)." 37
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
