Hudyih v. Smith, 684 F. App'x 99

Petitioner Rashad Hudyih was convicted by a jury of attempted second-degree murder and second-degree criminal weapon possession in New York state court.
Hudyih filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition asserting, among other claims, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain the victim’s blood test results and to test blood-stained clothing.
The New York County Court denied Hudyih’s CPL § 440.10 motion as procedurally barred because the ineffective-assistance claim was based on facts of record and therefore could have been raised on direct appeal.
The federal district court denied the § 2254 petition and granted a certificate of appealability only as to the ineffective-assistance claim regarding forensic testing; Hudyih appealed to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo, focused on whether the state procedural bar was adequate and independent and, if so, whether Hudyih could overcome the default by showing cause and prejudice or actual innocence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hudyih’s ineffective-assistance claim was procedurally defaulted under CPL § 440.10(2)(c)	Hudyih argued the state rule was inadequately applied and should not bar his claim	State argued the claim was record-based and properly barred under § 440.10(2)(c)	Held: Procedurally barred—New York law firmly applies where ineffectiveness can be assessed from the record
Whether the CPL § 440.10(2)(c) bar is inadequate under Cotto guideposts	Hudyih contended the bar was exorbitantly applied or not regularly followed in similar circumstances	State maintained New York precedent routinely enforces the bar for record-based claims like forensic testing failures	Held: Bar is adequate; case law shows § 440.10(2)(c) applies to record-based forensic testing claims
Whether Hudyih showed cause and prejudice to excuse the default	Hudyih argued counsel’s failure to seek tests constituted cause and prejudiced his defense	State argued Hudyih failed to demonstrate cause/prejudice or actual innocence	Held: Hudyih failed to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence; default not excused
Whether merits warrant habeas relief if procedural default excused	Hudyih asserted substantive ineffective assistance meriting relief	State defended conviction as supported by record; asserted procedural bar preserved outcome	Held: Court did not reach merits after finding procedural default and no excuse; affirmed denial of habeas petition

Freeman v. Kadien, 684 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for habeas denial)
Jones v. Stinson, 229 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (identifying last reasoned state judgment rule)
Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2009) (federal courts cannot review independent and adequate state-law grounds)
Fulton v. Graham, 802 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2015) (application of § 440.10(2)(c) to ineffective-assistance claims)
Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (U.S. 2011) (state procedural rule adequacy requires being firmly established and regularly followed)
Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2002) (exorbitant application exception to procedural default doctrine)
Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2003) (guideposts for assessing adequacy of state procedural bars)
Gutierrez v. Smith, 702 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2012) (cause-and-prejudice standard to overcome procedural default)