ALI v. NOGAN, 1:13-cv-07364

Background

Defendant Abdullah Ali was convicted by a New Jersey jury of three counts of second-degree sexual assault (lesser-included offenses) and one count of disorderly persons simple assault arising from a March 19, 2006 assault on A.D.; DNA and forensic evidence supported the convictions.
Trial occurred in June 2007; the trial court originally imposed three concurrent 20‑year extended terms with 85% parole ineligibility; Appellate Division reversed as to multiple extended terms and remanded for resentencing.
On remand Ali was resentenced (July 22, 2009) to an aggregate 20‑year term with an 85% parole ineligibility period; New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification.
Ali pursued state post‑conviction relief, which was denied; the Appellate Division affirmed and New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on PCR appeal.
Ali filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising (inter alia) claims about clerical errors in the judgment, improper lesser‑included instructions/multiple convictions, absence from a charge conference, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
District court reviewed the petition under AEDPA standards, concluded Ali failed to rebut state factual findings or show unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and dismissed the petition with prejudice and denied a COA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Clerical error in judgment (assault degree) and denial of appeal/due process	Ali argued the judgment wrongly listed a fourth‑degree assault (instead of disorderly persons), denying appeal/due process and requiring dismissal	State: error was clerical, corrected in 2013, did not affect aggregate sentence or appeal rights	Court: error was clerical, corrected, caused no prejudice; no habeas relief
Jury instruction and conviction on three second‑degree counts	Ali argued judge improperly instructed on lesser‑included second‑degree counts without indictment, producing multiple punishments for one episode	State: judge permissibly instructed on lesser included offenses; jury found multiple acts of penetration; concurrent sentences	Court: state finding that instruction was supported by evidence is presumed correct; no federal violation shown
Absence from charge conference / right to request lesser offenses	Ali claimed due process/right to be present and to request sexual‑contact instruction	State: charge conference and instruction decisions are matters of state law; evidence did not support sexual contact instruction	Court: presence not required where defendant could not gain anything; Appellate Division reasonably found sexual contact instruction unwarranted; no due process violation
Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial/appellate)	Ali alleged counsel failed to subpoena an impeachment witness, caused mistrials, failed to inform him about charge conference, and appellate counsel omitted issues	State: failures either were strategic, unsupported, or caused no prejudice; appellate counsel not required to raise every issue	Court: applying Strickland + AEDPA, Ali failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; claims denied

Key Cases Cited

Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (review of state-court adjudications under AEDPA)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under § 2254)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (cumulative evidentiary errors and due process in narrow circumstances)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (state-law errors in jury instructions not cognizable on federal habeas)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (scope of indictment/right to grand jury in federal context)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (right to effective assistance on first appeal as of right)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (presumption of correctness of state factual findings under § 2254(e)(1))