Gulifield v. Superintendent, Green Haven Corr. Facility

Jashaad Gulifield, Petitioner, v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility Respondent.^[1]

No. 18 Civ. 2411 (CS)(PED)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 15, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Paul E. Davison, U.S.M.J.

TO THE HONORABLE CATHY SEIBEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Jashaad Gulifield (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and sentence upon a plea agreement in New York Supreme Court Rockland County. [Dkt. 1.] On April 29, 2013, Petitioner entered into a guilty plea for one count of welfare fraud in the third degree and one count of criminal sexual act in the third degree. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of three to six years of imprisonment. Petitioner is currently serving his sentence at the Green Haven Correctional Facility in Dutchess County, New York. The Petition comes before me pursuant to an Order of Reference entered on June 4, 2018. [Dkt. 11.] For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend that Your Honor DENY the Petition.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History^[2]

1. The Crimes

In 2011 Petitioner was released on parole for another matter. To his parole officer, he reported that he lived with his mother at 11 Highview Court, Nyack, New York. However, when Petitioner applied for Medicaid in November 2011, he listed his address as 608 Hudson Avenue, Nyack, New York. He also stated that he did not have any income or personal expenses and that he had been continuously unemployed for the past two years. When Petitioner applied for food stamps in February 2012, he again reported that his address was 608 Hudson Avenue, Nyack, New York and claimed that he paid $400 in rent. Petitioner's applications were approved and he ultimately received $1, 400 in food stamps and $4, 615.59 in Medicaid assistance.

On June 12, 2012, Detective Brendan Donohue interviewed Mr. Noel Veras, a maintenance mechanic for Nyack Housing Authority. Detective Donohue questioned Mr. Veras regarding whether he saw Petitioner at 11 Highview Court. Mr. Veras said that he had seen Petitioner in and around 11 Highview Court for approximately six months. Detective Donohue then showed Mr. Veras a photograph of Petitioner and Mr. Veras confirmed that the photograph was indeed of Petitioner. Mr. Veras also observed that the background of the photograph was the bathroom of Petitioner's residence at 11 Highview Court.

Police obtained and executed a search warrant of 11 Highview Court on June 27, 2012. They found Petitioner at the address, as well as mail addressed to the Petitioner and Petitioner's New York State benefit card. Petitioner was arrested and, after a Miranda warning, questioned by Detective Robert Shine. Upon questioning, Petitioner stated that he had been living at 11 Highview Court for the past six months. Petitioner was ultimately charged with one count of misusing food stamps and one count of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Prior to his arrest, on June 9, 2012, Petitioner met a 16-year-old girl in the par-king lot of the housing complex for 11 Highview Court. Petitioner offered the girl oxycodone in exchange for nude photographs of herself. When the girl provided the photographs, Petitioner demanded oral sex as well in exchange for the drugs. The girl complied and performed oral sex on Petitioner. Petitioner was also arrested in connection with this offense and charged with one count of criminal sexual act in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

Finally, on July 26, 2012, Petitioner sold oxycodone to another individual for $ 80.00. He was arrested and charged with one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

2. The Suppression Hearing

On February 28, 2013, Petitioner moved to suppress testimony related to Mr. Vera's identification of Petitioner. [Dkt. 10-2 at 19.] At a hearing on March 25, 2013, the trial court held that Petitioner's motion to suppress be denied. [Dkt. 10-3 at 55.] More specifically, the trial court found that the testimony could have fallen within one of the two types of confirmatory identifications recognized by the Court of Appeals, and thus denied Petitioner's motion to suppress. [Id. at 55-56.]

3. The Plea Hearing

Petitioner's criminal activity was covered by three different indictments and on April 29 2013, Petitioner entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution for two of those indictments. At the plea hearing, Petitioner was represented by his counsel, Mr. Schonbrun, and the prosecution was represented by Ms. Conklin. The hearing began with the prosecution informing the trial judge of the most recent indictment against Petitioner for selling oxycodone and how the prosecution offered to include that indictment in its recent offer to Petitioner, but would only do so for that day:

THE COURT: I informed you with Mr. Schonbrun present that the People have there are two felony complaints pending on an unrelated matter that he was rearrested on and also that they've indicted him on a sale of drugs case. So I asked the People what their offer was because I said I'm not inclined to go along with the three to six, which is what their offer was, in view of the new cases, one of which is a B felony, I'm told, which has a range of up to twelve years on. So unless you conclude something, Mr. Schonbrun, I'm assuming they will probably move the B felony to trial first because that's the higher case in terms of penalties that he's facing. So I don't know. Have you discussed anything with Ms. Conklin today?

MR. SCHONBRUN: Judge, I've had some of discussions with Ms. Conklin. That was prior to the People having advised the Court that there are new sealed indictments on drug sales.

THE COURT: One of which they said was handed up today, this morning.

MS. CONKLIN: Yes.

MR. SCHONBRUN: Today, yes. That was new. But prior to that I had discussed with Ms. Conklin the offer, and as recently as Friday, I spoke with Mr. Gulifield and that answer was - he rejected the offer. Subsequently, now, coming into court, hearing the new indictments and the unrelated felony complaints, I advised Mr. Gulifield of the same and that your Honor would not - might possibly not go along with the three- to six-year offer -

THE COURT: I wouldn't be inclined to do that if there's a B felony on top of the two that's here. It's a new case with a much higher exposure.

MR. SCHONBRUN: Right. So I advised Mr. Gulifield that the offer was open today and that you had advised me that after today that you would be inclined not to go along -

THE COURT: Yes, because she told me that she told you that they would include the others up till today but not after today? That's what you said?

MS. CONKLIN: That's correct, Judge.

MR. SCHONBRUN: Right. So I advised Mr. Gulifield of that and he's going to tell me what he wants to do, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

[Dkt. 10-3 at 57-59.] After discussing the deal offered by the prosecution with his attorney, Petitioner agreed to change his plea to guilty to certain charges on the three indictments:

MR. SCHONBRUN: Yes, Judge, based on discussions had at the bar and with the People, my client wishes to withdraw his previously-entered plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to Indictments 394 of 2012 and 22 of 2013.

THE COURT: What count is he going to plea to on the 394 -

MS. CONKLIN: Count 1.

THE COURT: Count 1, that's welfare fraud in the third degree, right?

MS. CONKLIN: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: That's a felony, 158.15, right. And then under Indictment Number 22 of‘13?

MR. SCHONBRUN: Yes, Judge. It's also the top count?

MS. CONKLIN: Yes.

THE COURT: That's also Count 1 ?

MS. CONKLIN: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: That's criminal sexual act in the third degree, right?

MS. CONKLIN: Yes, Judge.

MR, SCHONBRUN: Yes, Judge. I don't know. There's another indictment, a sealed indictment, which has been voted but not handed up yet for action, to the Court, for arraignment. So in our discussions we had agreed that Mr. Gulifield will plead guilty to that top - to those two counts - The top count?

MS. CONKLIN: It will be a reduced count. It was handed up as a B, reduced to a D.

THE COURT: They're going to reduce it from a B to a D felony for dispositional purposes.

MR. SCHONBRUN: Right. A B to a C felony. Correct? With time to run concurrent on the other two indictments.

THE COURT: Yes. That's what they said.

MS. CONKLIN: Yes, Judge.

[Id. at 67-71.] When Petitioner's counsel was arguing that Petitioner should be credited for the time he was out on bail, the trial court stated: “You know, if you don't have this worked out, then forget the three to six today. I'm not doing it after today. That's their decision to make the recommendation for today. That wasn't mine. So I said, since they said they'd do it today, I'd [sic] would finish it.” [Id. at 75.] Petitioner then plead guilty to the charges of welfare fraud in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the third degree, with the plea for the sale of oxycodone to come later.

When he was pleading guilty, Petitioner admitted that he was a predicate felon. [Id. at 80-82.] During the plea allocution for the welfare charges, Petitioner had difficulty understanding how the prosecution obtained the amount of money he received from Medicaid assistance:

THE DEFENDANT: $4, 000, you said it came from Medicaid assistance?

MS. CONKLIN: Yes. The total amount of benefits you received based on your fraudulent applications was $6, 015, 59, and that's broken up into $1, 400 in food stamps and then $4 615.59 in Medicaid assistance, understanding that the Medicaid assistance could

...