Hobbs v. McIntosh

Background

Martin Hobbs was convicted in New York Supreme Court of first-degree robbery and sentenced to twenty years to life in prison. The conviction arose from a robbery at a Manhattan bank. The victim testified that Hobbs pushed into her, pressed a blunt object against her side, said he had a gun, and took her money. She could not see the object and acknowledged that it could have been a finger or something else.

Hobbs’s trial defense was misidentification. His lawyer, Toni Messina, did not ask the jury to consider third-degree robbery as a lesser-included offense. First-degree robbery required proof that the robber displayed what appeared to be a firearm; third-degree robbery required forcible stealing but did not include that display element. The jury was instructed only on first-degree robbery and found Hobbs guilty.

State-court proceedings

Hobbs later moved to set aside his conviction, arguing that Messina provided ineffective assistance by failing to request the lesser-included-offense instruction. Messina submitted an affidavit stating that she had no strategic reason for omitting the request and had not recognized that the law and facts supported it.

The New York trial court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim. It held that, under New York law, there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which Hobbs forcibly stole property without displaying what appeared to be a firearm. The Appellate Division later rejected the claim and affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

Federal habeas standard

Hobbs sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under that statute, a federal court may grant relief only when the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The standard is highly deferential: an error is not enough if fair-minded judges could disagree about the state court’s decision.

The underlying ineffective-assistance standard comes from Strickland v. Washington. A petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the mistake caused a substantial likelihood of a different result. When a federal court reviews a state court’s application of Strickland under Section 2254, the review is especially deferential.

Discussion and ruling

The court first observed that Hobbs’s claim was arguably not reviewable in federal habeas proceedings because it principally challenged the state courts’ interpretation of New York law concerning when a lesser-included-offense instruction is required. Federal habeas courts generally may not reexamine state courts’ decisions about state law.

The court nevertheless considered the claim on the assumption that it could review the state-law issue. It concluded that Hobbs could not show that the state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable. New York appellate decisions had rejected lesser-offense instructions in similar circumstances, including cases in which victims did not actually see the object used to simulate a firearm. The court reasoned that the victim’s testimony that she felt an object, heard Hobbs say he had a gun, and gave him her money supported the state court’s conclusion. The existence of other New York cases that Hobbs argued supported his position did not establish a basis for federal habeas relief.

The court therefore denied Hobbs’s habeas petition. It also ruled that Hobbs had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so no certificate of appealability would issue. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The Clerk was directed to close the case.