Jessamy v. Lamanna

Background

Thomas L. Jessamy filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his New York state-court convictions. A jury convicted him of attempted rape in the first degree, attempted rape in the third degree, assault in the second degree, strangulation in the second degree, and assault in the third degree. The state court had sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. The New York intermediate appellate court affirmed the convictions, and New York’s highest court denied leave to appeal.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy, who recommended denying the petition. Jessamy objected to that recommendation and repeated his earlier arguments, while also raising claims about ineffective assistance of counsel and the admission of the victim’s 911 calls.

Court’s analysis

Judge Roman adopted the report and recommendation. The court stated that Jessamy’s objections mostly repeated his earlier arguments and found no clear error. To the extent the objections were specific, the court reviewed the claims and rejected them.

On the claims involving the victim’s testimony, the court found that differences between her grand-jury and trial testimony were minor inconsistencies, not proof of perjury. It also found no legally significant difference between the charged conduct and the evidence presented at trial. The court concluded that Jessamy had fair notice of the charges and was not unfairly surprised or prejudiced by the testimony.

The court rejected the challenge to Jessamy’s warrantless arrest. It explained that federal habeas review generally does not revisit a state prisoner’s search-and-seizure claim when the state provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. The court also stated that, in any event, the victim’s reports of a sexual assault, her identification of Jessamy, and her injuries supplied sufficient facts to support probable cause.

The jury-tampering claim was procedurally barred because Jessamy did not present it to New York’s highest court. The court further found that the claim was based on speculation and that the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecutor’s contact with a juror was an innocent chance encounter. The court also found no showing that the juror was biased.

The conspiracy claim was procedurally barred because Jessamy had not raised it during the trial or state appeal. The court also found the claim conclusory and unsupported by the record. The ineffective-assistance claim was first raised in Jessamy’s objections rather than in his original petition. The court treated the new claim as improper and stated that, even if considered, Jessamy had not shown deficient legal performance or resulting prejudice.

The court also found that the challenge to the victim’s 911 calls was procedurally barred because Jessamy did not seek review of that issue in New York’s highest court. Separately, the court stated that the calls were properly admitted under the state-law exception for statements made under the stress of an exciting event, and that this independent state-law basis prevented federal habeas review.

Disposition

The opinion’s conclusion states that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Jessamy had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.