White v. Wolcott

Background

Derrick White filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his New York conviction. A jury convicted him of second-degree assault, first-degree reckless endangerment, and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon after a shooting. The state court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 18 years to life.

White challenged two matters. First, he argued that police obtained lineup evidence without counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Second, he argued that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge cell-site location information, or CSLI, that prosecutors obtained under a court order without a warrant supported by probable cause.

White had challenged the lineup evidence before trial, but the state court denied suppression. He did not move to suppress the CSLI. After his conviction, he argued in state proceedings that his lawyer should have challenged the CSLI, relying on the Supreme Court’s later decision in Carpenter v. United States. The state appellate court affirmed his conviction and denied that claim. The New York Court of Appeals denied further review.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended denying White’s federal petition. White objected, and Judge Abrams reviewed the report and recommendation.

Lineup Evidence Claims

The court held that White’s federal lineup claims were unexhausted. Exhaustion requires a state prisoner to present the essential factual and legal basis of a federal constitutional claim to the appropriate state courts before seeking federal relief. Although White’s state filings referred to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments in headings, the court found that his arguments relied only on New York law and did not fairly present the federal constitutional claims.

The court also agreed with the magistrate judge that the lineup claims lacked merit. Under the federal Constitution, the right to counsel does not attach at a lineup occurring before indictment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to the specific offense for which the prosecution has begun. White’s representation in an unrelated case therefore did not establish a federal right to counsel during this lineup. The court emphasized that federal habeas review does not provide relief for violations of state law alone.

Ineffective-Assistance Claim

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington. Under that test, a petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the deficiency probably affected the result.

The court held that White failed to satisfy either requirement. Trial counsel’s decision not to challenge the CSLI was not objectively unreasonable because binding New York precedent at the time would have foreclosed the challenge. The court also agreed with the state appellate court that White failed to show prejudice. Even without the CSLI, the trial record included eyewitness testimony, surveillance video, phone records, and jail calls supporting the conviction.

Disposition

Judge Abrams adopted Judge Cave’s report and recommendation in its entirety, overruled White’s objections, and denied the petition. The court directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, close the case, and mail White a copy of the order.