High v. Miller, 2:16-cv-00984

Background

On March 18, 2011, High and an accomplice (Marone) were observed inside 115 Hilton Ave. A homeowner’s representative (Costello) saw them leave; police stopped them nearby and found a discarded plastic bag containing copper piping. High later gave a written confession admitting entry and intent to steal copper.
Costello performed a prompt on-scene show-up identification of High while High sat in a police car; Costello had watched High leave the house and testified he never lost sight of him until police detained them.
High was charged with burglary in the second degree, tried before a jury, convicted on July 24, 2012, and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment plus five years of post-release supervision.
On direct appeal High argued (a) insufficiency of the evidence, (b) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, (c) the show-up was unduly suggestive (Wade claim), and (d) ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed; leave to the NY Court of Appeals was denied.
High filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising four claims: (1) show-up unduly suggestive; (2) insufficient evidence; (3) arrest lacked probable cause; (4) ineffective assistance for failure to preserve the sufficiency claim. The district court denied relief, finding most claims procedurally barred and, alternatively, without merit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the on-scene show-up impermissibly suggestive (Wade claim)?	High: show-up identification was unduly suggestive because Costello saw High in handcuffs and near police.	Respondent: the show-up was prompt, conducted consistent with good police practice, and Costello had an adequate opportunity to observe and identify High.	Procedurally barred for failure to raise on appeal; on the merits identification was not impermissibly suggestive and was independently reliable — claim fails.
2. Was the evidence legally insufficient to support burglary in the second degree?	High: no forced entry, no arrest on March 19, and gaps undermine a finding of unlawful entry or intent to steal.	Respondent: confession, Costello’s unbroken eyewitness account, and recovered copper piping corroborate guilt; sufficiency challenge was unpreserved but, on the merits, evidence supports conviction.	Procedurally barred for failure to preserve with specific motion; on the merits conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence — claim fails.
3. Was High’s arrest on June 6, 2011 unsupported by probable cause?	High: no probable cause existed on March 19 because no signs of forced entry and Costello declined to press charges initially.	Respondent: Costello’s eyewitness ID and the recovered bag with copper piping provided probable cause; New York procedures allowed full litigation of Fourth Amendment issues.	Procedurally barred; alternatively, there was probable cause based on eyewitness ID and corroborating evidence — claim fails.
4. Ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to preserve the sufficiency claim on appeal	High: counsel’s general omnibus motion failed to preserve the specific sufficiency argument, denying effective assistance.	Respondent: even if counsel erred, there is no Strickland prejudice because the evidence was sufficient and the outcome would not have been different.	Denied: counsel’s failure does not satisfy Strickland prejudice prong; no reasonable probability the result would differ.

Key Cases Cited

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule for unlawful searches and seizures)
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (custodial arrest requires probable cause; unwarranted detention may render statements inadmissible)
U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (pre-trial identification procedures and right to counsel concerns)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (due process test for pre-trial identifications under totality of circumstances)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identification)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence — rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standards: contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (limits federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims when state courts provided full and fair opportunity to litigate)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default doctrine and cause-and-prejudice standard)