Tompkins v. Griffin
6:11-cv-06023
W.D.N.Y.Mar 11, 2012Background
- Tompkins seeks 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas relief from state-court convictions for second-degree murder, burglary, and related offenses arising from two Rochester incidents in Aug-Sep 2002.
- Ballistics linked the Sanders Street home invasion gun to the Portland Avenue murder weapon.
- Trial defense argued multiple ineffective-assistance theories; the Appellate Division and Second Circuit denied relief.
- The federal petition was denied; no certificate of appealability issued.
- The court applied AEDPA deferential review and concluded the state court’s Strickland analysis was not unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance under Strickland/Baldi standard | Tompkins argues counsel failed to meet Baldi standards for effective representation. | Griffin contends trial counsel’s conduct was reasonable under Strickland. | No unreasonable application of Strickland; balance of reasonableness supports denial. |
| Right to counsel at interrogation preservation | Tompkins asserts trial counsel failed to preserve right-to-counsel issue. | Griffin argues issue not preserved or properly raised. | Appellate review considered the issue on the merits; no prejudice established. |
| Voluntariness of statements | Tompkins asserts statements were involuntary or improperly obtained. | State courts found Miranda rights waived knowingly and voluntarily. | Record supports voluntariness; no prejudicial coercion found. |
| Failure to investigate Attenberry as exculpatory witness | Defense failed to interview/exhibit Attenberry to support exculpatory testimony. | Counsel’s strategic decision not to call Attenberry was reasonable. | No prejudice; even if testified, Attenberry’s identification weak and outweighed by confession and ballistics. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldi v. People, 54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) (Baldi standard for effective assistance remains relevant in AEDPA review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (establishes two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (unreasonableness of Strickland review under AEDPA)
- Rosario v. Ercole, 601 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies Strickland to New York ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) (counsel decisions about witnesses are strategic, not per se ineffective)
- United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) (trial strategy decisions generally not ineffective assistance)