Background

• Dennis, a pro se petitioner, seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 challenging a New York state court judgment for robbery in the third degree; he was convicted after a trial of a lesser-included offense and sentenced to 3.5–7 years on June 23, 2004; the Fourth Department affirmed on direct appeal and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal; he moved to vacate under CPL 440.10 while direct review was pending; the petition was deemed timely and referred to a magistrate judge; the petition was denied, with no certificate of appealability issued; the court applies AEDPA standards; grounds asserted relate to alleged violations of Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment rights, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and CPL §180.80 proceedings; the statutory argument is deemed non-cognizable on habeas review.
• Fulks testified that he and Dennis met via a chat line, then Dennis robbed Fulks at Fulks’ apartment on November 8, 2002; Dennis fled to Florida and was extradited back to New York; the jury rejected the gun enhancement and convicted Dennis only of the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree; evidence included admissions, threats, flight, and prior identification issues; the state court admitted Molineux-type evidence and other indirect proof, but the court instructed the jury to disregard improper testimony when curative instructions were given.
• Dennis argued various trial errors and evidentiary issues, but the court found that the record supported the state court’s rulings and that any trial errors did not amount to a denial of due process under AEDPA standards.
• The magistrate judge concluded that the habeas petition was properly dismissed on the merits after applying 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) and that no substantial constitutional right was shown to be violated.
• The decision notes that dismissal of the petition does not prevent Dennis from pursuing state remedies or a future federal petition if and only if he can show a substantial constitutional claim under AEDPA standards.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court, 1991) (federal habeas review for state-law errors only; due process standard for constitutional claims)
• Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (Supreme Court, 1970) (due process limits on evidence and procedures in habeas review)
• Brisco v. Ercole, 565 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2009) ( AEDPA deference framework; unreasonable application or factual determination)
• Jones v. Vacco, 126 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 1997) (procedural standards for habeas petitions; burden of proof)
• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice needed)
• Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (Supreme Court, 1974) (standard for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct in habeas cases)
• Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (Supreme Court, 1986) (misconduct must deprive defendant of due process; not every error requires reversal)
• Agard v. Portuondo, 117 F.3d 696 (2d Cir. 1997) (multi-factor due-process analysis for prosecutorial misconduct)
• Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 1998) (curative instructions and overall impact of misconduct reviewed)
• Young v. United States, 470 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1985) (conviction may stand despite some misconduct if the jury rejected the most serious charge)
• Germosen, 139 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (assessing whether prosecutor’s conduct infected trial with unfairness)
• United States v. Shareef, 190 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 1999) (sufficiency of evidence after prosecutorial conduct)