Three summary orders over the past month, Saracina v. Artus, Carncross v. Poole, and King v. Greiner. The details of each are listed below.
Of the three, Saracina was the most interesting to me. The issue was whether petitioner was unlawfully adjudicated a persistent felony offender. In other words, did the state court properly decide that petitioner had two prior qualifying felony convictions? The Second Circuit concluded that this was a matter of state law that was not cognizable on habeas review. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that. I think a due process violation can potentially lie in there somewhere. What caught my attention about this, though, is that the Second Circuit stated that it had previously held that this was simply a matter of state law. It then cited to two cases from 1959. Not that cases that old are no longer good precedent, but they seem a little ancient to me. Maybe a published opinion would have been more appropriate in order to update an ancient holding.
But King also had an interesting procedural paragraph. I am not quite sure I understand it though. The question is whether 2254(d) deference should apply to petitioner's IAC claim which was based on counsel's failure to object to improper comments during the prosecutor's summation:
As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether AEDPA requires that we afford deference to the county court’s decision denying King’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. While it is true that the county court rejected King’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits, it is not clear that deference is appropriate under AEDPA because King’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was at least partially predicated on claims that New York’s highest court declined to reach on direct review. People v. Anonymous, 96 N.Y.2d 839, 840 (2001) (concluding that King’s claims regarding the prosecutor’s allegedly improper comments were not preserved for appellate review, but noting that it did “not condone” the prosecutor’s summation). In Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2003), we noted that we were “inclined to conclude that the Court of Appeals’ holding that [petitioner’s claim] was unpreserved mean[t] that the claim was not ‘adjudicated on the merits’ in the state courts,” and thus that we should not defer to the lower court decisions addressing the merits of the claim. Id. at 231. Of course, in that case, we did not definitively resolve the issue as we proceeded to “assume without deciding that there was an ‘adjudication on the merits’ in the state courts,” and held that the state court’s merits adjudication failed even under AEDPA’s deferential standard of review. Id. at 231, 252-53. In this case, we also need not reach whether AEDPA deference is warranted because we conclude that King’s claim fails even under de novo review.
So, I understand the concept of what they are talking about: even if a lower court addresses the merits of a claim, if the last reasoned state court opinion does not address the merits of a claim, then potentially there should not be deference. Habeas review focuses on the last reasoned decision.
But I am not sure how that applies here. The 440 decision came after the Court of Appeals' decision. I would think that, because the state court addressed the IAC claim on the merits (probably in a completely summary fashion), then deference would apply to the IAC claim. That would be true even if a state court failed to separately address the merits of the underlying deficient performance component when it was raised as its own claim. Am I making sense? I guess I shouldn't pick it apart too much since there is a potential benefit to petitioners. But I just am having a hard time following the logic.
The details:
Carncross v. Lempke, 11-435-pr
- Affirming Denial of Habeas
- Argued: 11/17/11; Decided: 11/30/11; summary order
- Panel: Jacobs, Cabranes, Livingston
- Lower Ct. Info: 10-CV-522 (NDNY Jan. 20, 2011) (LEK) (unpublished order)
- In Circuit: Dist. Ct. COA
- Issues: whether the trial court wrongfully deprived petition of his right to utilize counsel of his choice in the related criminal action
Saracina v. Artus, 10-3898-pr
- Affirming Denial of Habeas
- Argued: 12/15/11; Decided: 12/20/11; summary order
- Panel: Calabresi, Katzmann, Parker
- Lower Ct. Info: 04-CV-521, 2010 WL 3529339 (WDNY Sept. 08, 2010) (MAT) (JWF)
- In Circuit: Dist. Ct. COA
- Issues: whether petitioner's claim that he was improperly adjudged a PFO based on a non-qualifying, out-of-state conviction is cognizable on habeas review.
- Affirming Denial of Habeas
- Argued: 12/14/11; Decided: 12/23/11; summary order
- Panel: Sack, Katzmann, Parker
- Lower Ct. Info: 02 Civ. 5810, 2009 WL 2001439 (SDNY July 8, 2009) (DLC) (AJP)
- In Circuit: Dist. Ct. COA
- Issues: IAC based on counsel's failure to object to prosecutor's summation comments
Comments