Muller v. Lee, 9:13-cv-00775 (GTS/TWD)

WILLIAM MULLER, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM LEE, Respondent.

9:13-cv-00775 (GTS/TWD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 2, 2016

APPEARANCES:

LAW OFFICES OF JOEL B. RUDIN

Attorney for Petitioner

600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor

New York, New York 10020

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN

Attorney General of the State of New York

Attorney for Respondent

120 Broadway

New York, New York 10271

OF COUNSEL:

JOEL B. RUDIN, ESQ.

ALYSON J. GILL, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

Of Counsel

THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS, United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter has been referred to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(c), by the Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby, Chief United States District Judge. Presently before this Court is the timely counseled petition of Petitioner William Muller, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.)

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered on June 19, 2007, following a jury trial in Columbia County Supreme Court ("County Court"), the Honorable Jonathan D. Nichols, County Court Judge, presiding. (Dkt. No. 23-1 at 156-57.) Petitioner was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree (New York Penal Law § 125.27(1)(viii)). Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on each count, to be served concurrently. (Dkt. No. 13-1 at 63.)

The Appellate Division Third Department ("Appellate Division") unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction on April 22, 2010, and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied on June 20, 2010. People v. Muller, 899 N.Y.S.2d 425 (3d Dep't 2010), lv. denied, 899 N.Y.S.2d 425 (Table) (2010).

On July 20, 2012, the County Court denied Petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL § 440.10 (Dkt. No. 17-3 at 2-14), and leave to appeal that ruling was denied by the Appellate Division on September 27, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2.) Petitioner's writ of error coram nobis was denied by the Appellate Division on December 21, 2012 (Dkt. No. 18-2 at 2), and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on June 27, 2013. (Dkt. No. 18-3 at 2).

On Petitioner's direct appeal, the Appellate Division briefly summarized the facts of this case:

On the night of June 27, 2006, defendant went to the home of his in-laws armed with a loaded pump-action shotgun looking for his estranged wife [Christie Muller]. After he arrived at the premises, defendant was confronted by [Dennis] Lynch and, moments later, three shots were discharged from the shotgun mortally wounding [Dennis] Lynch and his wife [Carolyn Lynch]. What transpired immediately prior to and at the time of the shooting was the subject of dramatically different testimony given at trial by defendant andhis estranged wife. Defendant denied harboring any ill will toward his in-laws and claims that he went to their home to commit suicide in front of his wife who was seeking a divorce. He admits being armed with a loaded shotgun, but claims that the weapon accidentally discharged three times during a physical struggle that he had with [Dennis] Lynch shortly after he arrived at the premises. Defendant's wife, who was present in the home at the time of the shootings, claims that defendant came to her parents' home intending to kill her and, while there, executed her two parents when they sought to intervene on her behalf.

People v. Muller,899 N.Y.S.2d at 428.

Petitioner raises the following grounds for habeas relief:

(1) The County Court's violation of Petitioner's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a defense and to due process of law by barring Petitioner from raising the defense of extreme emotional disturbance and from introducing evidence of his prior suicide attempts in support of his defense of lack of specific intent and of accident (Dkt. No. 1 at 16);

(2) Ineffective assistance of trial counsel in violation of Petitioner's rights under the Sixth Amendment, id.;

(3) Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in violation of Petitioner's right under the Sixth Amendment, id. at 17;

(4) The County court's violation of Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by improperly restricting the cross-examination of Petitioner's estranged wife at trial; id.; and

(5) The People's suppression of Brady material supporting Petitioner's defense, and its misleading summation in violation of Petitioner's right to due process and a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at 17-18.

Respondent has filed an answer, together with the pertinent state courts records and a memorandum of law in opposition to the petition. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 13-23.) Petitioner has filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 28.) With permission of this Court, Respondent has filed a sur-reply. (Dkt. No. 36.) The Court has fully considered the submissions, including letter briefs (Dkt. No. 38 and 39), and arguments of the parties. For reasons explained herein, the Court recommends the habeas petition be denied and dismissed in its entirety.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Relevant Pre-Trial Matters

On September 6, 2006, Petitioner was indicted on charges of murder in the first degree for the deaths of Dennis Lynch and Carolyn Lynch, the parents of his estranged wife, on June 27, 2006. (Dkt. No. 13-1at 67-68.) On September 19, 2006, Petitioner, represented by William M. Tendy, Esq. ("Tendy"), entered a plea of not guilty. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 1-10.)

On October 17, 2006, Tendy filed a notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence pursuant to CPL § 250.10. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 3-4.) However, that notice merely mirrored CPL § 250.10, and by letters dated November 13, 2006, and November 20, 2006, the People advised Petitioner the notice was defective and requested, in accordance with People v. Almonor, 693 N.Y.S.2d 861 (1999), "more specificity as to the type of psychiatric evidence" the defense intended to offer at trial. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 7, 9.)

By letter dated November 22, 2006, Tendy disputed the People's claim of defective CPL § 250.10 notice, stating the notice was timely served and filed within thirty days of Petitioner's plea. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 11.) Tendy further stated because Petitioner had not yet been examined by a psychiatrist, he was unable to provide additional information. Id. Tendy claimed "there would be no last minute surprise regarding psychiatric evidence," and that an amended notice would be provided "as it becomes available and necessary." (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 11-12.)

On December 26, 2006, Marco Caviglia, Esq. ("Caviglia"), entered an appearance on Petitioner's behalf. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 16.). On January 2, 2007, Caviglia requested adjournment of the January 8, 2007, pretrial hearing, and January 22, 2007, trial. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 19-20.)Caviglia indicated he needed time to review Petitioner's case file and to address some outstanding issues, "such as perfection of the notice of intent to introduce a psychiatric defense, and some disclosure issues." (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 19-20.)

On January 8, 2007, the People moved to preclude "any evidence as set forth in CPL § 250.10 because of [Petitioner's] defective and inadequate notice as well as his failure to provide discovery pursuant to CPL 240.30." (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 24.) The County Court entertained the People's order to show cause on January 8, 2007. Id. at 25. There, Caviglia stated that he intended to perfect the CPL § 250.10 notice, but had not had time to fully review the case file, nor identify a psychiatric expert. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 25-30, 32.) Based in part on that representation, the County Court denied the People's motion without prejudice. Id. at 30¹. The pretrial hearing was adjourned to March 5, 2007. Id. at 31.

By letter dated January 19, 2007, the People renewed their request that Petitioner comply with the notice requirements of CPL § 250.10, specifically requesting notice of the type of psychiatric evidence the defense intended to present at trial. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 34.) Caviglia responded to the People's request by later dated January 23, 2007, and indicated that was still in the process of attempting to obtain a mental health expert. Id. at 36.

By letter dated January 30, 2007, the People requested an amended CPL§ 250.10 notice that was "sufficiently specific" by February 2, 2007, and that Petitioner forward "any hospitalrecords, medical records, counseling records, notes, statements, psychiatric material . . .which may be utilized as the basis for your defense as previously demanded[.]" Id. at 38.

On February 7, 2007, Caviglia provided supplemental notice, pursuant to CPL § 250.10(b), that he "shall present lay witness evidence only concerning the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance." (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 41.) Caviglia also indicated the supplemental notice was "served purely for the purpose of avoiding surprise to the People, although in the absence of psychiatric evidence to be presented, it is the [Petitioner's] position that such notice is not required." Id.

Thereafter, the People moved for an order to show cause on February 23, 2007, "why an order of preclusion should not be entered against [Petitioner] from introducing into evidence any and all testimony concerning the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and any other related evidence, due to [Petitioner's] defective and inadequate Notice of Intention" pursuant to CPL § 250.10. (Dkt. No. 36-2 at 44.)

In response, Caviglia submitted an answer and memorandum of law, dated February 23, 2007. Id. at 46-51. That answer revealed for the first time Petitioner would present evidence of his past suicide attempts and depression in support of the affirmative defense. Id. at 46. Specifically, on April 15, 2006, Petitioner was transported by the New York State Police to Columbia Memorial Hospital pursuant to a complaint by his wife that he was threatening suicide with...