Baltas v. Comm'r of Corr.

1

JOE J. BALTAS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, Respondent.

No. 3:22-cv-571 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

May 31, 2024

RULING AND ORDER

VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Joe J Baltas (“Petitioner”), currently incarcerated under High Security in Cranston, Rhode Island, has filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2254 challenging his conviction for murder and assault.

The Commissioner of Correction (“Respondent”) has filed a response to the order to show cause seeking denial of the petition.

For the following reasons, the petition is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The Connecticut Supreme Court determined the jury reasonably could have found the following facts.

[Mr. Baltas] was involved in a relationship with [Misty] Rock, one of the complaining witnesses in this case, from December, 2005 until October, 2006. At some point during the month of October, the two discussed leaving Meriden, the town in which both of them lived, to start a new life in South Carolina.

On October 25, 2006, Rock was living with her brother, Christopher Laverty (Christopher), her mother Linda Laverty (Linda), and her stepfather, Michael Laverty (Michael). At approximately 10 p.m., Linda and Michael were sitting in the living room of their apartment watching a movie, while Christopher and Rock were on the second floor of the home. Christopher came downstairs and opened the door to the basement, intending to check on the status of a load of laundry. As he opened the basement door, he encountered a masked person who was dressed all in black, wearing a ski mask, and holding at least one knife. The masked person stabbed Christopher in the stomach, and then moved out of the basement and into the living room, where he proceeded to fatally stab Michael. The masked person then turned to Linda, stated “die, bitch,” and stabbed her in the neck. Linda later testified that she recognized the masked person as [Mr. Baltas] because of his eyes, the sound of his voice, and his body mannerisms. The masked person walked to the staircase leading to the upper floor of the home, and while on the staircase, he ran into Rock, who had heard the commotion from upstairs. In the collision, the masked person's knife went through Rock's sweatshirt and t-shirt and inflicted a scratch on her stomach. The masked person then forced Rock in front of him, grabbed her by the hair, and forced her out of the apartment. While this was happening, Christopher grabbed a knife from the kitchen and a telephone and exited the home, running next door to ask a neighbor to call the police. Rock and the masked person then exited the apartment and were walking down the street, away from the apartment. Christopher attempted to stop them, and Rock told him to stop and not come any closer. Christopher then sat down on a bench and called the police himself, identifying [Mr. Baltas] as the masked person who had just assaulted his family.

[Mr. Baltas] and Rock then walked to an abandoned car and sat in it. Rock testified that, at this point, [Mr. Baltas] told her that he had killed Michael and stabbed Linda and, although Rock could not remember if [Mr. Baltas] was still wearing a mask, Rock recognized his voice. [Mr. Baltas] and Rock waited in the car until Rock informed [Mr. Baltas] that she needed to use the bathroom. [Mr. Baltas] led Rock to the Pulaski School, at which point [Mr. Baltas]-who at that time was not wearing a ski mask or a dark shirt-and Rock were confronted by police officers. The police observed [Mr. Baltas] holding a butter knife in his hand and told him to drop it. When [Mr. Baltas] did not comply with their command, the police tasered him and he fell to the ground; as he did so, a folding knife later found to be stained with Michael's blood fell out of [Mr. Baltas'] pocket.

A K-9 officer was also dispatched as a result of Christopher's 911 call, and the officer's dog tracked the path that [Mr. Baltas] and Rock took away from the apartment. The K-9 officer also had his dog perform an “article recovery....” Between the K-9 officer's search and the actions of other police officers in the area, the following items along the path taken by [Mr. Baltas] and Rock were recovered that evening: (1) a ski mask, the interior of which later was tested positive for [Mr. Baltas'] DNA, and the exterior of which tested positive for Michael's blood; (2) a dark, bloody shirt which tested positive for the blood of Linda and Michael; (3) a latex glove stained with the blood of Linda and also possibly of Michael; and (4) a long knife stained with the blood of Michael, which the state medical examiner later concluded was the weapon that caused his fatal wounds. Tests also indicated that Michael and Linda were the sources of various bloodstains found on [Mr. Baltas'] pants, sneaker, and arms when he was arrested. Finally, the police matched a shoe print that was formed in blood at the crime scene to the shoe of [Mr. Baltas].

State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786, 790-92 (2014).

B. Procedural Background

In 2010, following a criminal trial, a jury convicted Mr. Baltas of murder, assault, burglary, and kidnapping. Baltas, 311 Conn. at 789. On direct appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the convictions for burglary and kidnapping but affirmed the convictions for murder and assault. Id. at 790. Although the case was remanded for a new trial on the burglary and kidnapping charges, the State of Connecticut (the “State”) chose not to retry Mr. Baltas on those charges. Mr. Baltas remains incarcerated on the murder and assault convictions.

On direct appeal, Mr. Baltas challenged his conviction on four grounds: (1) the trial court improperly excluded evidence highly relevant to his defense thereby preventing him from engaging in cross-examination regarding that evidence, (2) the trial court failed to give a hybrid third-party culpability instruction or failed to instruct the jury on Mr. Baltas' theory of defense, (3) the trial court refused to instruct the jury regarding the motive of one complaining witness to testify falsely, and (4) the trial court refused to reverse the convictions which were tainted by improper comments by the prosecutor. Id. at 789-90.

On September 8, 2015, Mr. Baltas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court. In the amended petition, Mr. Baltas asserted claims of prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, judicial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Baltas v. Commissioner of Corr., No. CV154007469, 2020 WL 1745684, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020). The state court denied the petition. The court determined that the claims of prosecutorial misconduct were procedurally defaulted and barred by res judicata, and the claims of police misconduct were barred by res judicata and failed to state a cognizable claim. Id. at *3-4. Mr. Baltas asserted several examples of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed that trial counsel offered a “two person” theory at closing without first consulting him, agreed to the admission of certain exhibits without first reviewing them, failed to properly impeach certain witnesses, failed to call certain witnesses to testify for the defense, failed to consult or hire experts in blood spatter or crime scene reconstruction, failed to impeach Misty Rock with letters she had written, and failed to conduct an adequate investigation. Id. at *5. The state court rejected all claims. Id. at *5-8. The court also denied certification to appeal. Id. at *9.

Mr. Baltas appealed the denial of certification. He argued that the habeas court erred in determining that his right of autonomy was not violated when counsel allegedly conceded his guilt during closing argument and in determining that counsel was not ineffective in making that argument. Baltas v. Commissioner of Corr., 210 Conn.App. 167, 173 (Conn. App. 2022). The Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and, on March 1, 2022, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification to appeal. Id. at 176, cert. denied, 342 Conn. 911 (2022).

On April 18, 2022, Mr. Baltas commenced this action by petition asserting six grounds for relief: (1) violation of his Sixth Amendment right to autonomy, (2) actual innocence, (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (4) police misconduct, (5) prosecutorial misconduct, (6) state court error and abuse of discretion, and (7) cumulative error. See Pet., ECF No. 1, at 12239.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Mr. Baltas failed to exhaust his state court remedies on most of the claims asserted in the petition and that other claims were not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. On December16, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition without prejudice to Mr. Baltas filing an amended petition asserting only the claims for which he had exhausted his state court remedies. See Ruling and Order, ECF No. 34. The Court cautioned Mr. Baltas that, if he chose to pursue only the exhausted claims rather than returning to state court to properly exhaust the remaining claim, he might be precluded from obtaining federal review of the unexhausted claims. See id. at 18-19.

On May 15, 2023, Mr. Baltas filed an amended petition asserting six grounds: (1) violation of his Sixth Amendment right to autonomy, (2) actual innocence, (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (4) prosecutorial misconduct, (5) state court error and abuse of discretion, and (6) cumulative error. See Am. Pet., ECF No. 48, at 24-36.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The federal court will entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a state court conviction only if the petitioner claims that his...