Madison v. Colvin, 2:17-cv-07250

Background

Michael Madison was convicted after a 2010 Suffolk County jury trial of first‑degree burglary and first‑degree unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; sentence ultimately reduced on appeal to 20 years (burglary) concurrent with 3.5–7 years (vehicle).
Victim Joseph Lobiondo awoke to an intruder, was struck, and later a crashed vehicle (owner: Kelsey Mitchell) was found; police recovered items linking Madison and his DNA on a deployed airbag; Madison gave a signed confession.
Lobiondo identified Madison from a photo array at the hospital and then twice in a corporeal lineup two days after the offense.
Madison filed various state challenges (suppression/Huntley–Wade hearing, direct appeal, C.P.L. § 440.10 motion); Appellate Division affirmed convictions but reduced sentence; New York Court of Appeals denied leave.
Madison filed a § 2254 habeas petition raising (inter alia) untimeliness, Rosario disclosure failure, unduly suggestive identifications, improper bolstering with prior consistent statement, denial of right to counsel/change of counsel, and ineffective assistance during plea negotiations. The district court denied the petition in full.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness (AEDPA one‑year)	Petition filed one day late; excuses based on loss of legal papers justify tolling	Petition untimely; no adequate showing of equitable tolling or actual innocence; merits dismissal appropriate	Petition untimely but denied on merits because claims are meritless; court did not reach tolling question
Rosario/disclosure	State failed to disclose source that led to photo array inclusion—Rosario violation	No record evidence such a source or material existed; Rosario/Jencks not constitutional basis for habeas; claim unpreserved in state court	Procedurally barred and meritless; no federal due‑process Brady/Jencks violation shown
Identification procedures	Photo array + corporeal lineup and filler disparity were unduly suggestive causing misidentification	Procedures not impermissibly suggestive; identification had independent reliability (multiple IDs, confession, DNA, recovered property)	Denied: state courts reasonably found procedures non‑suggestive and identification reliable under Simmons totality analysis
Bolstering prior consistent statement	Detective’s testimony about Mitchell’s prior statement impermissibly bolstered her testimony	Prior consistent statement admissible to rehabilitate after cross‑examination challenged fabrication; state evidentiary issue only	Denied: evidentiary ruling is state law matter and not a cognizable federal habeas claim
Right to counsel / substitution mid‑trial	Denial of late request to replace appointed counsel violated Sixth Amendment	Request came at late stage; substitution would cause mistrial/prejudice and new counsel unavailable; defendant had previously approved counsel	Denied: trial court reasonably exercised discretion; no violation of right to effective counsel of choice
Plea bargaining / IAC in plea negotiations	Counsel failed to correct prosecution’s temporary mistaken belief that Madison was a persistent violent felony offender, costing a better plea	No evidence mistake affected pretrial plea offers; defendant rejected offers and made clear he did not want plea bargaining; no deficient performance or prejudice shown	Denied: no Strickland prejudice or deficient performance; sentence within state ranges and appellate reduction further undermines claim

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA deference standard for federal habeas review)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (actual innocence as gateway to overcome AEDPA time bar)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (due process test for pretrial identification procedures)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (IAC standards apply to plea negotiations)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and cause/prejudice standard)
Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957) (disclosure of witness statements; not itself a constitutional rule for habeas relief)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel of choice subject to scheduling and trial‑management limitations)