Lewis v. Conn. Comm'r of Corr.

1

KACEY LEWIS, Petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, Respondent.

No. 3:23-cv-492 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 15, 2024

RULING AND ORDER

Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge.

Kacey Lewis (“Petitioner”), a Connecticut inmate currently residing at a Re-entry Assisted Community Housing (“REACH”) facility, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction for assault, kidnapping, interfering with an officer, and possession of narcotics.

In response to the Court's order to show cause, the Connecticut Commissioner of Correction (“Respondent”) contends that the petition should be denied as Mr. Lewis has procedurally defaulted on all of his claims for relief.

For the following reasons, the habeas petition is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

Early in the evening of July 20, 2009, [Mr. Lewis] and his girlfriend, Alana Thompson, drove around the streets of Waterbury trying to sell heroin. [Mr. Lewis] eventually parked the car he was driving, his sister's 2008 Nissan Altima, near East Liberty Street and South Main Street, at which time he and Thompson separated. When they parted company, Thompson told [Mr. Lewis] that she was going to try to sell some of his heroin on her own. The two agreed that they would meet back later where he had parked the car. When Thompson later returned to the car, [Mr. Lewis] was not there. She then walked away and encountered a friend of hers named Anna, who was driving around looking for drugs. Thompson got into Anna's car and called [Mr. Lewis] who reproached her for not being at their meeting place. Thompson and [Mr. Lewis] again agreed to meet where [Mr. Lewis] had parked his sister's car, but Thompson stayed with Anna, who drove them to her home where they “got high.”

Approximately one hour later, Thompson got a ride to her aunt's house on Willow Street. On the way, she listened to several voice mail messages from [Mr. Lewis], in which he expressed his anger with her. Upon arriving at her aunt's house, Thompson learned that [Mr. Lewis] had stopped by there earlier, looking for her.

After about five or ten minutes at her aunt's house Thompson left with an acquaintance, Amanda Blouin, who walked with her down Willow Street to the parking lot of the corner store, where they encountered a drug dealer known to them as “Nono.” Nono, in turn, walked with them to Hillside Avenue, where they stood on the sidewalk, conversing with one another, until [Mr. Lewis] rapidly drove his sister's car up onto the curb alongside them. [Mr. Lewis] quickly alighted from the car and approached Thompson, who was standing on the passenger side of the car, saying, “Bitch, come here.” In response, Thompson moved away from him, going around the car in the other direction. At some point, [Mr. Lewis] caught up with Thompson and grabbed her by her shirt and hair, punched her in the face, and tried to pull her to the car. She broke free of [Mr. Lewis's] grasp and tried to flee to a nearby store, but [Mr. Lewis] followed her and grabbed her again by her shirt and hair. Thompson attempted to resist [Mr. Lewis's] efforts and dropped to the ground to try to prevent him from getting her to the car. [Mr. Lewis], however, persisted in his efforts to subdue her, dragging her approximately ten feet back toward the car. When they got back to the car, [Mr. Lewis] maintained his grip of Thompson's hair with one hand, “holding [her] down [so that she] couldn't get up.” Then he attempted three times to open the passenger side door of the car with his other hand to force Thompson inside. Each time he did so, Thompson kicked the door shut to prevent [Mr. Lewis] from forcing her into the car. Two plain clothes police officers driving a white sport utility vehicle arrived at the scene, and [Mr. Lewis] let go of Thompson.

State v. Lewis, 84 A.3d 1238, 1239-40 (2014) (footnotes omitted).

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Mr. Lewis of assault in the third degree, kidnapping in the first degree, interfering with an officer, and possession of narcotics. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Id. at 1239. On direct appeal, Mr. Lewis challenged his conviction on only one ground, that the facts adduced at trial were insufficient to support the conviction for kidnapping because any restraint imposed on the victim was merely incidental to the assault. Id. The Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification to appeal on April 9, 2014, State v. Lewis, 89 A.3d 349 (2014), and the United States Supreme Court denied Mr. Lewis's petition for certiorari on October 6, 2014. Lewis v. Connecticut, 574 U.S. 584 (2014).

In 2011, while the direct appeal was pending, Mr. Lewis filed a petition for new trial. Respondent's Mem. App. D. The Connecticut Superior Court granted the respondent's motion to strike the petition, Respondent's Mem. App. E, the Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, Respondent's Mem. App. F, and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification. Lewis v. State, 125 A.3d 532 (2015).

On December 24, 2014, Mr. Lewis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court challenging his conviction on seven grounds, each ground encompassing several claims: (1) he was denied a fair and meaningful opportunity to prepare and defend; (2) he was deprived of his right to present a defense; (3) his right to self-representation was violated by various court actions; (4) the prosecutor suppressed or failed to timely disclose material exculpatory evidence; (5) the trial court failed to adequately canvass him regarding self-representation; (6) the trial court deprived him of sufficient trial preparation time; and (7) appellate counsel was ineffective. Respondent's Mem. App. G. The trial court found the claims in the first six categories to be procedurally defaulted and denied the claims in the seventh category on the merits. Lewis v. Comm'r of Corr., No. CV154006877, 2019 WL 2601824 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 17, 2019).

Although the trial court denied certification to appeal, Mr. Lewis appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court on five grounds: (1) the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sequester appellate counsel; (2) the habeas court erred in striking his motion to reconstruct and correct the record; (3) the habeas court abused its discretion by denying an application to issue subpoenas; (4) the habeas court abused its discretion by dismissing in part and denying in part his amended petition; and (5) the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal. Respondent's Mem. App. M, ECF No. 10-13 at 5. The Connecticut Appellate Court refused to address the first three grounds because Mr. Lewis had not included them in his petition for certification to appeal. The court also found that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the first six claims asserted in the state habeas petition were procedurally defaulted and rejected the claim that appellate counsel was ineffective. Lewis v. Commissioner of Corr., 271 A.3d 1058, 1062 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). The Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification on May 31, 2022, and the United States Supreme Court denied Mr. Lewis' petition for certiorari on October 11, 2022. Lewis v. Commissioner of Corr., 275 A.3d 1213 (Conn. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. Lewis v. Quiros, 143 S.Ct. 335 (2022).

On April 18, 2023, Mr. Lewis filed this habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction on five grounds: (1) the prosecutor suppressed material exculpatory evidence, namely photographs of Thompson; (2) the prosecutor made a late disclosure of material impeachment evidence, namely, criminal records of state witnesses; (3) deprivation of investigative services; (4) violation of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation; and (5) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

III. 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 custody violates the Constitution or federal laws. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” Jones v. Murphy, 694 F.3d 225, 234 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Hardy v. Cross, 565 U.S. 65, 66 (2011) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As long as “there is nothing in its decision to indicate that the claims were decided on anything but substantive grounds,” a claim will be considered “adjudicated on the merits” even if the state court fails to mention the federal claim and cites no relevant federal case law. Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 94 (2d Cir. 2001); accord Harrington v Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011) (“When a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.”); id. at 98 (section 2254(d) deference applies even “[w]here a state court's decision is unaccompanied by an explanation”). Thus, a court must “extend considerable deference even to deficient reasoning, at least in the absence of an analysis so flawed as to undermine confidence that the constitutional claim has been fairly adjudicated.” McCray v. Capra, 45 F.4th 634, 640 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation and punctuation omitted).

The federal court cannot grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a...