Schouenborg v. Superintendent Auburn Correctional Facility
707 F. App'x 20
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Terrence Schouenborg was convicted in New York state court of sodomy, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child and sentenced to 22 years to life.
- After state-court direct appeal and collateral attack failed, Schouenborg filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief.
- Certificate of appealability was granted solely on whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move to reopen a Wade hearing after the victim testified at trial about pre-lineup police instructions.
- At trial the victim testified a detective said words to the effect of “you’re going to have to pick one” and asked why she recognized a lineup participant—raising potential suggestiveness concerns about the lineups.
- The state court applied New York’s “meaningful representation” standard (People v. Benevento) and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim as a reasonable strategic decision by counsel; the Second Circuit reviewed whether that decision unreasonably applied Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to reopen the Wade hearing after the victim testified about police lineup instructions | Schouenborg: counsel’s failure to move deprived him of effective assistance because the victim’s testimony suggested the lineup may have been unduly suggestive | Superintendent: counsel reasonably chose not to reopen Wade; even if suggestive, the identification likely would survive an independent reliability inquiry | Court: Affirmed denial of habeas relief—state court’s finding that counsel’s strategy was reasonable was not an unreasonable application of Strickland |
| Whether the state court’s use of New York’s standard negates AEDPA deference | Schouenborg: Benevento differs from Strickland so no deference should be given | Superintendent: New York’s standard is not contrary to Strickland; AEDPA deference applies | Court: New York standard is not contrary to Strickland; petitioner must show unreasonable application of federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (deference to state-court Strickland determinations)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (state-court latitude in applying Strickland)
- Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (weighing suggestiveness against independent reliability for identifications)
- Rosario v. Ercole, 601 F.3d 118 (New York ineffective-assistance standard not contrary to Strickland)