People v Holifield
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Holifield 2020 NY Slip Op 35589(U) November 2, 2020 County Court, Onondaga County Docket Number: Indictment No. 02-0700-1 Judge: Matthew J. Doran Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. I I I STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONONDAGA - COUNTY COURT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, .Plaintiff, Indictment Number: 02-0700-1 Index Number: 02-0682. · VS. HENRY HOLIFIELD, -Defendant. ------~--------------------------------------------------------.-~--------------· APPEARANCES: WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, _ESQ.~ District Attorn.ey of Onondaga County BRAOLEY .W. OASTLER, ESQ. . Attorney for the People __HEN RY HOLIFIELO Pro Se IIIIIIII IIIIII Ill lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll 111111111111111111 Doc IO: *041022510007 Type: COU Kind: CRIMINAL - -···-• •-·-Recorded: 11/03/2020 at 09:23:06 AM Fee Amt: PaQe 1 of 7 Transaction: DECISION & ORDER OnondaQa County, NY Lisa Dell County Clerk C0-2002-000682 DORAN, MATTHEW J., .Presidin_g ·DEC"ISION/ORDER . This is a ·pro se motion pursuant to . Cri~inal Procedure Law Section 44_0. i_o wherein the D~fendant has requested that the Court vacate the instant . underlying judgment of conv.ictiqn upon the grounds that (i) he was denied effective . . . -assistance of counsel for -his.counsel''s failure to subpoen_a witnesses whose testimony . . ...·. would have. changed the.' t~ial outcome; -(2). he was denied effective· assist~nce of . ' ~ounsel for his counsel's ·failure to· pursue a_ "third party_ culpability defense~' and (3) . t, ·. . ' ' that the prosecutor engaged in r'nisc~n~uct in hiding evidence that the murder wea_pon .· was: ~~ned by the co-defendant's grandfather. A re.view of the "facts of this case indicates that an Indictment was filed · against the Defendant charging him with r-,urder in th_ e First Degree_in violation of Penal Law Section 125.27{l){a)(vii) and (b), Murder in the Second Degree in violation of Penal Law Section 125.25(3), 2 counts of Robbery in ~he First Degree 1 [* 1] in violation of Penal Law Section 160.15, 2 counts of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree in violation of Penal Law Section 155.30 and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree in vioiation of Penal Law·section 265.03(2) involving an incident occurring on April 23 rd , _2002, wherein the vict~m, Jonathan Perry, was killed by a gunshot to the back of h_is head at close range. It was alleged that .the Defendant and the co~defendarit lured'the.victim into the basement of his home where . he wa·s shot by this defendant after which. the Defendant took _money and credit cards . . ·from the deceased victim's. po(:ket. ·The Defendant and the co-:defendant were then . . . ar_re~ted after the police traced them to using the. victim~s· cr~dit: cards on the day of the ·murder. A jury trial was commer:ice~ on May 5t\ 2003 and _the Def~ndant was . ,' found guilty' of-Murder in the First Degree ~nd. all submitted cou~ts. . On Jun~ 16th, . . . . .. 2003, the Court'sentenced the defe'ndant to an aggregate of life impris~mment without . c.... parole. The Defe_ndant. subsequently appealed his· cO:nv_iction alleging, among other things, that. his convict.ion was .against the w,eight of the evic;lence.' On March . . ' . . .. -17th, ~006, the ·Appellate. Di~ision,. Fourth Department, u~~mimously. affirmed the : conviction, stating ,. that ·they coulq not . conclude that the jury Jailed to .give the . . . t:, ·. evidence the weight it should be_ accorded 27 AD3d 1163[°4th . . . ' (see People v Holifield; . . · Dept_ 2006]). The Court of Appeals denied leave to Appeal (People v Holifield, 6 NY3d 848[20061). As indicated· by the People in thei_r reply papers, the Defendant also sought a. writ of habeas corpus and the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the Defendant's claim and noted that evidence sufficient 2 [* 2] I i I ! to uphold the conviction Was "clearly established by the record in this case" Holifield v Supt Southport Corr Facility, 2009 WL 160815 [ND NY 2009]. It appears that the Defendant also moved for a writ of error co ram nobis, claiming that he was denied effecti_ve assistance of appellate cou·nsel. Defendant's . . motion was denied (People v Holifie_ld, 66 AD3D 1498 [ 4 th o"ept 2009] and leav_ e to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeais (People v Holifield, 15 NY3d ·751 [2010].). The Defendant now brings .the instant ·motion pursuant to CPL Sectio!'l . 440.10. The Court has reviewed the briefs submitted o_n hehalf of both p~rties and i_s of the· opinion that the Defendant_'s allegations are qoth legally and fac;tually . insufficient t~ support a finding by t~_e Co_urt that the Defendant's convi~tion _should . ,' . be vacatecj and therefore, the Defend~nt's m_oti_on must be denied. - . First and- foremost,·. the Court would note that a dismissal of the Defendant's motion ·at the" .onset is warranted as it 'is wholly. un$upported ·by any evidence or affidavits._-Pursuant to 'New York Criminal Procedure Law §440.30(4)(d), a Co1:1rt tnay- deny a motion .~o vacate a judgme.nt of conviction \fl{hen an- allegation .· -· essential to sup.port such i:,,otion is '.'made solely by the defendant and i.s unsupported by any other· affi_d avit or eviden(:e and under these and all o_ther circumstances ti ', attendiRg the case there possibility that such allegation is true·.". A . . . is no reasonable . , ' . ' trial. court does not abuse its ·discretion in denying a motion to· vacate· a judgment ' . ' when t~e defendant's motion papers did not .include any evidence of contradictory testimony. or evidence to establish that the prosecution was aware·of false testimony ' ' (People. v Brown, 56 NY2d 242, 246~4 7). Given that the defendant's papers do not contain any sworn allegations, such motion is defective (see CPL 440.30(4)(b)). 3 I i j . l· [* 3] - Additionally/to the extent thatthe defendant's current claims regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel, which include the allegation that his counsel failed to subpoena witnesses whose testimony would have changed the trial outcome and that counsel failed to pursue a ." third party culpability defense", were not raised on appeal, the Court is bf the opini~n that sufficient facts appeared upon the rec;:ord to have permitted, upon appeal, adequate review of such claims issues but( ·due to the . defendant's unjustifiable failure, they were not. (see·Crimina~ Procedure Law Sectio~ · 440.10(2)(c)). In any event, upon a thorough review of the entire record of this case, . . . the Court. is · o_ f the. opinion that· the (?efendant~s . ~onten.tions do not support· a . ,· meritorious claim of ineffective assistance·of counsel. There is n.o precise de_finition.- of what co·nstitutes in~ffective .1.egal representation; nor is there a partrcular stand.ard applicable to every case. · Rather; all of the evidence must be weighed in the context at the time .of .the .iepresentation to assess the alleged de~icient· representation. It appears .from the record in this case . . _that ~his 'Defend~:mt received. (lleanir\gful representation. In. Pe~ple v .Baldi, 54 . NY2d 137, the Court of Appeals bas ·adopted a flexible approach t_ o the ~etermina.tion of issues relating.to the ineffective assistance . t:; ·. of counse·I which determination. is depended upon the circumstances of each case ... ' • r , • The court in Baldi, 54 NY2d at 146; 147 stated: ." ... so long as the evidence, the law and the circumstances of a ·p articular case, viewed in totality, and ·at thetime of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met ... " ·(see aIsa People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705; People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941). 4 [* 4] • I Ii The evidence, the law and the circumstances alleged upon the instant motion, viewed in totality and at the time of the representation, reveal to this Court that the Defendant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705; People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941). In People v Cortez, 296 Ao'2d 465 the Court stated: "A defendant is not guaranteed a perfect trial. but is entitled to a fair one. Thus, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must .demonstrate that he or she was deprived of a fair trial by less th~n . meaningful repiesent!3tion; ·mere . disagreement with strategies or tactics will notsuffice" .(see, Pe.ople v·Benn, 68 NY2d .94l, 942; People v Satter(!elcj, 69 ~Y2d 796,. 798-799). · Upoh a review of the facts , and circumsta·nces of this case·, the Court is • r' of .the op_i:nion that there is nothing ·in the record to cast doubt upon the appare·nt · . . . effectjveness ·of . his counsel. . Clearly, the . defense attorney vigorousl_y pursued appropriate motions and objections before and during t~ial which. exh_ibited c! thorough grasp .of the fpctual i_ssues a_·nd knowledge of the applicable ·1aw. : . .. _Additionally, the Court agree~ with the People's contentipn that the. · . Defe~dant's all~gati,ons that ·counsel was ineffective for failing to c_ all witnesses and/or -· . . . .. pursue a defense of _third party culpability is not probative as to whether the . . . Defendant was . the·actualshooter. The evidence adduced at trial . . .was consistent with . . t:, ·. and supported the D~fen·dant's c·onfessj'on including the details of the shooting and.the . . . . . . ' _·victim's. body. There is no reasonable Ukelihood that evidence of either the co- defen_dant's ties to.-the murder weapon before and after the murder also supports the contention -that she was the shooter . . Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that the Defendant has not made the required showing that there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation· 5 [* 5] for counsel's failure to call a particular witness or pursue a particular defense (see People v Chen, 293 AD2d 362; People v Chung, 276 AD2d 708; People v Williams, 273 AD2d 824) .. The defendant's mere disagreement with the strategies and tactics of defense counsel "does not suffice to satisfy qefendanes burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel" (see People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941, 942; People v Sattetfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; see also, People v Brandon, 237 AD2d 9a0). . Therefore, the _Court· finds Defendant's. claims· of ineffective assistance . of-counsel is without support . and; indeed, is contradicted by the record. There is . . . is:: • · nothing in the record that casts doubt on the apparent effecti·v:eness of counsel as meaningful representation has be.en provided. . . . . Lpstly, the Defenda.nt's claim of prosec·utoriai misconduct is unsupported _by_ any ev\'den_ce. a~cl has no 'tactual basis, eith~r in the trial- court record or·ir:i th~ Defendant's affidavit supporting h_is present Criminal Pro~edure Law §_440.10 moti9n.' c...., - The Defendant has .not alleged any new facts, and. the Defendant has· thereby inappropriately _used a Criminal Procedure Law §440. l0 m_otion as a sec~ndary vehicle of appeal.to··rai~e a· claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, the Defenda.nrs motion- · must be denied -as a ·result .. : . . . Based up.on the foregoing, the Defendant's Motion t_o Vacate is denied " ir:i all resp~cts without a hearing . . l::;t ·. The Decision her~ii, constitutes the . O r ~ r t . Judge of Cou_nty Court Dated: Syracuse, !'Jew York · November-2 nd , 2020 MJD/bab 6 -I l i . i· [* 6] ,. I I ! I NOTICE AS TO FURTHER APP.EAL Please be advised that pursuant Criminal Procedure l.,.aw Sectfon 460. 1s; a defendant has the right to apply for -a certificate granting leave to appeal to an intermediate appellate court. An applicati9n for such a certificate must be 117ade in the manner set forth in _the rules· of the· appellate division of this department (see 2-2 NYCRR Section ·1000.13(0)); • Denial of the application for _permission to appeal by the judge_ or justice first · ap.plied to is final and no l")ew applic~tion may thereafter be made to any other judge . or justice. · · .. . ,• . t, ·. 7 -I !i 'i· [* 7] -
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.
