Williams v. Shanley

1

ISIAH WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND SHANLEY, Respondent.

No. 20-CV-688 (JLS)

United States District Court, W.D. New York

October 31, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se petitioner Isiah. Williams, a prisoner in Respondent's custody, has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 39. Williams challenges the constitutionality of the December 4 2015 judgment entered against him in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County (Reed, A. J.), following a jury verdict convicting him of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument (New York Penal Law (“PL”) § 170.25) and one count of second-degree scheme to defraud (PL § 190.60). Williams also has filed motions seeking an evidentiary hearing, Dkt 45, appointment of counsel, Dkt. 47, leave to file excess pages, Dkt. 54, striking of Respondent's memorandum of law in opposition to the amended petition, Dkt. 61, and the removal of the New York Attorney General's Office as counsel for Respondent, Dkt. 64. For the reasons below, the Court grants Williams's motion for leave to file excess pages (Dkt. 54), denies the remaining motions for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. 45, 47, 61, 64), and dismisses the amended petition (Dkt. 39).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

A. The Indictment

The challenged conviction arises from Williams's 2015 retrial on Monroe County Indictment 2008-0446 (“Indictment 446”). Dkt. 20-7, at 96-116. Indictment 446 charged Williams with fifteen offenses stemming from his alleged involvement as the leader of a counterfeit check-cashing ring operating in Monroe County, New York, from August to December 2007.

B. The First Trial

Williams's first trial on Indictment 446 was conducted in November 2009, in New York State, Monroe County Court (Connell, J.). Dkt. 20-7, at 131. Williams represented himself without standby counsel. Id., at 149-50, 158, 160-62. Prior to jury deliberations, Count 7, which charged fourth-degree grand larceny (PL § 155.30), was reduced to petit larceny (PL § 155.25).^[1] The jury returned a verdict convicting Williams of Counts 3 through 15. Id., at 131, 284-85.

The jury acquitted Williams of Counts 1 and 2, which involved the passing of a counterfeit check at Five Star Bank on November 23, 2007, by Shameka Canady. Id., at 96-97, 103, 284-85. On January 21, 2010, Williams was sentenced as a persistent felony offender, see PL § 70.10(1), to an aggregate term of twenty years to life in prison. Id., at 131.

C. The Motion to Vacate the 2009 Conviction

On June 27, 2011, while his direct appeal of the 2009 conviction was pending, Williams filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (“CPL”) § 440.10. A copy of this CPL § 440.10 motion and the order disposing of it are not in the state court records. However, the state court records contain a copy of the prosecutor's letter to Monroe County Court Judge Vincent M. Dinolfo dated August 1, 2011, which was written in response to the motion. Dkt. 20-3, at 643-45; Dkt. 20-4, at 1-6. In this letter, the prosecutor noted that she apparently had not disclosed an investigative report to Williams prior to the 2009 trial. Dkt. 20-3, at 643. Accordingly, the prosecutor provided a copy of the report to Williams and his appellate counsel. Id.

The prosecutor also indicated that, based on that report, Dkt. 20-4, at 6, and further discussions with Key Bank, it appeared that Tameka Jones (“Jones”) had provided factually incorrect testimony before the grand jury regarding Count 4 of Indictment 446 charging petit larceny. Dkt. 20-3, at 643. The prosecutor explained that, contrary to Jones's testimony, Key Bank did not distribute any money to Jones when she passed check number 407759 for $961.11 on November 29, 2007.^[2] Id.', Dkt. 20-4, at 6.

The prosecutor indicated that she was reviewing all crime report numbers associated with Williams to determine if any other items had not been disclosed to him. Dkt. 20-3, at 644.

On September 30, 2011, the prosecutor filed an answering affirmation, Dkt. 20-4, at 7- 10, with exhibits, Id., at 11-13, in opposition to the CPL § 440.10 motion. The prosecutor noted that it was unclear whether she had provided Williams with “approximately twenty-five additional documents.” Id., at 8. Although the prosecutor believed that the information in the documents was cumulative to information in other documents she previously had disclosed, she forwarded the “approximately twenty-five documents” to Williams as exhibits to her answering affirmation. Id.

The “approximately twenty-five documents” themselves are not in the state court records, but there is a copy of the table describing each of the documents that the prosecutor attached to her affirmation. Id., at 11-13. According to this table, the twenty-five documents consisted of various reports, notes, and witness depositions generated by the Monroe County Sheriffs Office during their investigation into Williams's check-cashing activities. Id.

D. Reversal of the 2009 Conviction

On direct appeal, Williams was represented by assigned appellate counsel who asserted numerous grounds for reversal. Dkt. 20-7, at 117-206. The Fourth Department unanimously reversed the conviction on December 28, 2012. See Williams I, 101 A.D.3d 1730, 957 N.Y.S.2d 548.^[3] The Fourth Department concluded that the County Court did not “undertake a searching inquiry” to ensure that Williams was “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” and, therefore, it erred in granting Williams's request to proceed pro se. Id., 101 A.D.3d at 1733, 857 N.Y.S.2d at 552. Additionally, the County Court erroneously determined that Williams had forfeited his right to counsel because, in the Fourth Department's view, Williams's conduct was not sufficiently egregious to warrant such a harsh sanction. Id., 101 A.D.3d at 1733, 857 N.Y.S.2d at 552. Because the “tainted proceedings adversely impacted” Williams, the Fourth Department reversed the conviction. Id., 101 A.D.3d at 1733, 857 N.Y.S.2d at 552.

E. The Motion for Substitution of Counsel

The retrial was conducted in Monroe County Court in June 2015.^[4] Shortly before jury selection began, Williams made a Pro se request for substitution of his most recently assigned counsel, Matthew Mix, Esq. (“Attorney Mix” or “trial counsel”). Dkt. 20-9, at 22-34. The gist of Williams's dissatisfaction with Attorney Mix was that he did not communicate sufficiently with Williams in preparation for trial, did not conduct a full investigation, and did not adopt Williams's pro se motions. Id., at 31-34. The prosecutor responded that Williams had a “history, . . of trying to remove attorneys on the eve of trial” and characterized the current substitution motion as “just as baseless as what happened before.” Id., at 33. In addition to his request for new counsel, Williams raised numerous complaints about the prosecutor's office and the trial court.

The trial court denied Williams's “pro se motions in all aspects,” observing that “Mr. Mix may be like the twelfth attorney involved in [Williams]'s case.” Id., at 34, 51, 54-55. The trial court denied the substitution motion from the bench:

And I do not find any basis in [Williams]'s motions to have Matt Mix removed.

If I granted that, there is absolutely no one else that could represent [Williams] because he's exhausted all of the assigned counsel in Ontario County and all of the assigned counsel in Monroe County. And frankly, even the Court system is unable to appoint any other attorneys. So he is denied in all aspects of this motion.

Id., at 37-38.

F. The 2015 Retrial

At the retrial on Indictment 446, the prosecution presented evidence regarding Counts 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. As noted above, at the 2009 trial, Williams was acquitted of Counts 1 and 2, and Count 7 was reduced from fourth-degree grand larceny to petit larceny. In addition, Count 4 was dismissed with the prosecution's consent in connection with the C.P.L. § 440.10 motion challenging the 2009 judgment.

Prior to jury deliberations, the trial court dismissed Counts 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 with prejudice due to various deficiencies in the proof presented. Dkt. 20-9, at 1118-19. Counts 3, 5, and 15 were submitted to the jury. Count 3 charged Williams with second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument (PL § 170.25) based on the passing of a check in the amount of $961.11 payable to Jones on November 29, 2007. Count 5 also charged second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument (PL § 170.25) and involved the passing of a check in the amount of $931.16 payable to Veronica Hay-Boler (“Hay-Boler”) on December 13, 2007. Count 15 charged Williams with first-degree scheme to defraud (PL § 190.65(1)(b)) based on his involvement in multiple counterfeit check transactions that occurred between August 30, 2007, and December 20, 2007.

The following summary of the prosecution's proof does not include the testimony of the witnesses who testified relative to the dismissed counts.

1. The Prosecution's Case

Danielle Ruise (“Ruise”) testified that, in 2007, she lived next-door to Williams, who resided at 12 Arnett Boulevard. Dkt. 20-9, at 574-75. Williams asked Ruise if she “wanted to make some money” and explained the check-cashing scheme to her. Id., at 575-76. He said he would give Ruise a check payable to her, and she would cash the check at a bank. Id., at 576. Williams promised to pay Ruise for cashing checks and assured her she would not “get in trouble” so long as the check was for less than $5,000. Id. Williams instructed Ruise that after she cashed the check, she should report to...