Vazquez v. Miller

1

JUAN P. VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT MARK MILLER, Respondent.

No. 23-CV-564 (PKC)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 28, 2024

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:

Petitioner Juan P. Vazquez (“Vazquez” or “Petitioner”), appearing pro se petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions for first degree rape under New York Penal Law § 130.35(2) and sexual abuse in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 130.65(2), and his 15-year sentence entered on April 24, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County. (See generally Petition (“Pet.”), Dkt. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied.

BACKGROUND

I. Underlying Facts^[1]

On the night of March 5, 2016, Petitioner, a taxi driver, was acting as the designated driver for a birthday celebration of his family friend Ivan.

(State Court Record (“R.”), Dkt. 10, at 33, 36 59.)^[2] Ivan's sisters, Lola,^[3] Sylvana, and IA attended the celebration.^[4] (R. 32.) IA, who does not normally drink, consumed alcohol during the celebration that evening, which first took place at Ivan's home and then moved to a nightclub in Queens, with Petitioner driving the group. (R. 3234.) Due to her alcohol consumption, IA was unsteady on her feet and felt “weak.” (R. 36.) After several hours of dancing and drinking at the club, the group left the nightclub and was driven to Ivan's home by Petitioner, who had not drunk alcohol that night, at approximately 4 a.m. (R. 3637, 48, 64.) At Ivan's home, Ivan and his sisters continued to hang out and drink. (R. 36-37.) At that point, IA began feeling “more and more weak” and decided to rest. (R. 38.) Her sister, Sylvana, opened a pull-out couch, and IA “pass[ed] out” on the couch along with her sister Sylvana. (Id.)

At a certain point, Sylvana woke up when she felt the couch “shaking,” and saw Petitioner behind IA with his boxers down, thrusting into IA's body while holding her hips. (R. 96-97, 10607, 116.) At the time, IA was lying on her side on the couch, and was unresponsive and “out cold.” (R. 98, 100.) Sylvana yelled at Petitioner, asking him what he was doing, at which point “he jumped out the couch to try to pull his pants up” and Sylvana observed Petitioner's exposed genitalia. (R. 97, 107.) Petitioner began to cry and got on his knees to beg Sylvana not to say anything. (R. 97-98.)

After passing out on the pull-out couch, the next thing IA remembers is being awoken by Sylvana's screaming, at which point IA discovered that her pants and underwear were pulled down toward her knees and her blouse was pulled up, exposing her. (R. 38-41.) IA then felt pain and wetness in her genital area. (R. 41.)

Subsequently, IA was taken to the hospital where she was examined by a physician's assistant. (R. 43-44, 47-48, 186, 196.) A sexual assault kit taken from IA revealed the presence of blood and male genetic material around and inside IA's vagina. (R. 135, 137.) The physician's assistant who examined IA observed a skin tear near her vagina, “consistent with forcible penetration.” (R. 199-202.) As of March 6, 2016, the date of the assault, IA had not been sexually active for approximately two years. (R. 45.)

II. Bench Trial

Petitioner waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Richard Buchter in New York Supreme Court, County of Queens. (R. 9, 55.) Petitioner's bench trial was held from November 1, 2016 to November 8, 2016. (R. 9, 238.) At trial, the People presented IA, Sylvana, Ivan, several police officers, the physician's assistant who examined IA, and a criminalist from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner who tested the sexual assault kit as witnesses. (R. 28-54 (testimony of IA); 56-76 (testimony of Ivan); 87-118 (testimony of Sylvana); 120-57 (testimony of criminalist Jennifer Dorry); 162-84 (testimony of New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Officer Lucia Mohamed); 186-215 (testimony of physician's assistant Susan Tauman).) Petitioner presented one defense witness. (R. 222-35 (testimony of NYPD Detective James Ropenus).)

At the conclusion of the evidence, Judge Buchter “found the testimony as given by the People's witnesses to have been credible and cogent despite some minor inconsistences, and moreover, their testimony was corroborated by the medical and forensic findings.” (R. 258.) He concluded, inter alia, that given “the evidence of [IA]'s helplessness at the time of the incident,” “[Petitioner]'s statements upon being discovered in the act of committing the crime showing his consciousness of guilt,” and “the internal injury to [IA],” the elements of first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree rape were established beyond a reasonable doubt. (R. 258-59.)

Petitioner was sentenced on April 24, 2018 to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years on the rape charge with a 5-year period of supervised release, and a 7-year term of imprisonment on the sexual abuse charge with a 5-year period of supervised release, to run concurrently. (R. 262-67.)

III. Direct Appeal & Writ of Error Coram Nobis

Petitioner, through counsel, filed an appeal of the judgment issued in Queens County Supreme Court on May 15, 2018, in the New York Appellate Division, Second Department (“Appellate Division”). (Dkt. 10-1, at 8.) The briefing in the direct appeal raised three arguments: (1) that the court's verdict was against the weight of the evidence due to, inter alia, the lack of evidence of Petitioner's DNA, and unreliable witnesses; (2) that Petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective because of Petitioner not testifying in his own defense and Petitioner's waiver of a jury trial; and (3) that Petitioner's waiver of his right to a jury trial did not comply with the statutory requirements and was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. (Dkt. 10-1, at 3-5.)

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, thus rejecting Petitioner's appeal by order dated April 20, 2022. See People v. Vazquez, 164 N.Y.S.3d 850 (N.Y.App.Div. 2022). As to Petitioner's first point, the Appellate Division concluded that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 850-51. As to Petitioner's second point, the Court rejected Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because it constituted “a mixed claim of ineffective assistance” that relied “in part, on a matter outside the record.” Id. at 851. Because the relevant information was not before the court, the Appellate Division noted that Petitioner would need to seek relief pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“NYCPL”) Section 440.10. Id. Finally, as to Petitioner's third point, the Appellate Division stated that because Petitioner never objected below to his waiver of a jury trial, that argument was unpreserved for appellate review. Id. The Appellate Division added, in conclusion, “[i]n any event, the record does not support the defendant's contention that his waiver of the right to a jury trial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” Id.

On August 29, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals denied Petitioner leave to appeal the Appellate Division's decision. See People v. Vazquez, 194 N.E.3d 746 (N.Y. 2022). Petitioner did not petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. (Pet., at ECF 3.)^[5]

Approximately three months after the Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, Petitioner filed a writ of error coram nobis in the Appellate Division seeking to vacate the Appellate Division's affirmance of his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (Pet., at ECF 16-21.) The Appellate Division denied that motion on November 2, 2022. See People v. Vazquez, 175 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y.App.Div. 2022). Petitioner did not seek leave to appeal this denial with the Court of Appeals. (See Pet., at ECF 5.)

IV. The Instant Petition

The instant habeas petition was timely filed on December 28, 2022.^[6] (Pet., at ECF 42.) Petitioner challenges his conviction on the following grounds: (1) he is actually innocent; (2) the trial court's verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (3) he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel; and (4) his waiver of a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary. (See generally Pet.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

A federal district court may “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus [on] behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C § 2254(a). In order to obtain relief, such a petitioner must demonstrate, inter alia, that he has: (1) exhausted his potential state remedies; (2) asserted his claims in his state appeals such that they are not procedurally barred from federal habeas review; and (3) satisfied the deferential standard of review set forth in AEDPA, if his appeals were decided on the merits. See, e.g., Georgison v. Donelli, 588 F.3d 145, 153 (2d Cir. 2009); accord Edwards v. Superintendent, Southport C.F., 991 F.Supp.2d 348, 365-66 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).

I. Exhaustion

Before seeking federal habeas relief, a state habeas petitioner must first exhaust his state remedies by fairly presenting his constitutional claims to the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Bierenbaum v. Graham 607 F.3d 36, 47 (2d Cir. 2010). A petitioner fairly presents a constitutional claim to the state courts when he presents the essential factual and legal premises of his federal constitutional claim to the highest state court capable of reviewing it. See Jackson v. Conway, 763 F.3d 115, 133 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Rosa v. McCray, 396 F.3d 210, 217 (...