Haywood v. Griffin

Background

Tyrone Haywood, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction after a jury trial in New York State County Court, Westchester County. He asked the court to stay, or pause, the federal case while he litigated a new motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. This was his fifth request for a stay. The respondent opposed the request.

Haywood also asked for a copy of his criminal trial transcript.

Request to Stay the Federal Petition

The court applied the standard for staying a federal petition so that claims can be pursued first in state court. The petitioner must show good cause for not previously exhausting the claims in state court, that the claims are potentially meritorious, and that he is not intentionally using delay tactics.

The court found that Haywood did not satisfy all three requirements. It said his challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence for Counts One, Two, Seven, and Eight were based on the existing trial record and therefore were procedurally barred from being raised in a motion under § 440.10.

As to Haywood’s claim that the prosecution violated the disclosure rule established in Brady v. Maryland, the court found that he had not shown good cause for failing to raise the claim earlier. He also did not explain when he learned of the alleged violation. The court further found that the claim was not potentially meritorious. It explained that a Brady violation generally requires favorable evidence, suppression by the state, and resulting prejudice.

Haywood claimed that the prosecution suppressed L.M.’s medical records and that the records could have been used to challenge L.M.’s credibility and the charges. The court stated that the records appeared to have been disclosed to Haywood, citing a prior letter from the state saying that the medical records of both victims had been subpoenaed to the trial court to speed their disclosure. The court also said that, even if the records had been suppressed, Haywood likely could not show that they contained useful impeachment evidence or that their absence caused prejudice. It stated that the record contained substantial evidence of guilt and that Haywood likely would have been convicted on all counts even if L.M. had been seriously impeached.

The court also found that Haywood had not shown why his prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims had not been exhausted in earlier state-court motions. Because those claims appeared to depend on his Brady claims, the court found that he had not shown they were potentially meritorious under the stay standard.

The court denied Haywood’s request for a stay without prejudice.

Request for the Trial Transcript

The court denied Haywood’s request for a copy of the trial transcript without prejudice. It found that the record showed Haywood’s appellate lawyer had access to the transcript during the direct appeal. The court also found that Haywood had not demonstrated a specific and compelling need for another copy or identified anything in the transcript that would support his claims.

Disposition

Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied the request to stay the federal petition without prejudice and denied the request for a copy of the trial transcript without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Haywood a copy of the order. The order did not decide the underlying validity of Haywood’s state conviction or finally resolve his federal claims.