Wynn v. Lee

Background

Vone Wynn, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his New York state conviction. A jury convicted Wynn of second-degree murder in New York Supreme Court, New York County, on March 24, 2005. He received an indeterminate prison sentence of 25 years to life. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the New York Court of Appeals denied further review.

The matter came before the district court on Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying the petition in full. Wynn objected to the report, and the respondent also filed objections. Wynn separately asked for permission to obtain discovery under Rule 6 of the federal rules governing Section 2254 proceedings.

Claims and analysis

Wynn’s petition and amended petition raised claims concerning: (1) the right to conflict-free counsel; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) evidentiary rulings at trial; (4) the trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction based on a justification defense; and (5) sentencing factors considered by the sentencing court.

Conflict-of-interest claim

Wynn argued that his defense lawyer’s familial relationship with a prosecutor or prosecution witness created an impermissible conflict of interest. The court explained that a potential conflict may be waived if the defendant understands the conflict and its consequences, while a severe conflict may be unwaivable.

After independently reviewing transcripts from several pretrial conflict hearings and a hearing under People v. Gomberg, the court agreed with the magistrate judge that Wynn had been adequately informed about the potential conflict. The court found that Wynn had twice stated that he understood the conflict and had knowingly and voluntarily waived it. It therefore denied the ineffective-assistance claim based on the potential conflict. The court also found that additional evidence submitted by Wynn did not reliably establish an actual, unwaivable conflict.

Failure-to-investigate claim

Wynn argued that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate whether Detective Mike Paul existed. The court held that this claim was untimely and did not relate back to the original petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court explained that merely alleging the same general type of legal claim—ineffective assistance of counsel—is not enough. The new claim had to share a common core of operative facts with the original claim, and the court found that it did not. Because the claim was untimely, the court denied it without considering Wynn’s objections to its underlying merits.

Nine remaining claims

The remaining claims concerned alleged evidentiary errors, limits on cross-examination and impeachment, admission of prior statements and hearsay, the court’s response to a jury request during deliberations, refusal to give a justification instruction, and consideration of certain sentencing factors.

The court held that Wynn had not properly presented these claims to the New York Court of Appeals. His request for permission to appeal focused on the conflict-of-interest issue and did not clearly ask the state’s highest court to review the other claims. The court therefore found the nine claims procedurally defaulted. Because Wynn did not show cause for the default or resulting prejudice, those claims were dismissed without reaching their merits.

Discovery request

Rule 6 permits discovery in a Section 2254 case only for good cause. Good cause requires specific allegations showing reason to believe that developing the facts could establish entitlement to relief; it does not permit a general search for potentially helpful material.

Wynn sought documents and recordings concerning his lawyer’s investigation and certain witnesses. The court found that some requested materials were unrelated to the claims in the petition and amounted to a fishing expedition. The court also found that other materials Wynn cited undermined, rather than supported, his request. In particular, the court found the affidavit supporting his theory that a witness had been coerced unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence in the record. The court denied leave to take discovery.

Disposition

Judge Broderick adopted Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, Wynn’s discovery request was denied, no certificate of appealability issued because Wynn had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.