Feliciano v. Lee

Background

Israel Feliciano was convicted in New York state court of two counts of second-degree murder and received concurrent sentences of 25 years to life. He represented himself in filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to seek federal review of a conviction that allegedly violates federal law.

Feliciano raised four claims: (1) the trial court improperly changed its ruling about questioning him concerning prior misconduct; (2) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing argument; (3) the trial court mishandled Jury Note #12; and (4) police obtained his statements in violation of Miranda. The state Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Feliciano later filed a state motion challenging the judgment, which the state court denied.

Statute of limitations

The court held that the petition was untimely. The state-court judgment became final after the time to seek review by the United States Supreme Court expired on October 27, 2016. Feliciano filed a state post-conviction motion 139 days later, leaving 226 days to file a federal petition after that motion was no longer pending. The court determined that the deadline expired on August 25, 2018, but Feliciano did not file his federal petition until October 11, 2018.

Feliciano argued that a broken law-library printer prevented timely filing. The court found that evidence contradicted his account that the printer was unavailable for nearly five months and showed that prison staff could print documents elsewhere when necessary. The court also concluded that he could have copied the petition by hand. It rejected both his argument that state action prevented filing and his request for equitable tolling, an exception that can extend a filing deadline in extraordinary circumstances when a petitioner acted diligently.

Merits

The court also addressed the substance of Feliciano’s claims. Under the federal habeas standard, relief was available only if the state courts’ decisions contradicted clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable factual determination.

For the prior-misconduct evidence, the court held that the state courts reasonably concluded Feliciano opened the door to limited questioning when he testified that he had never been in trouble. The federal court found no showing that this ruling made the trial fundamentally unfair.

For the prosecutor’s closing argument, the court held that the claim was procedurally barred because the state Appellate Division found that Feliciano had not preserved it for review. In the alternative, the federal court agreed that although calling Feliciano a “liar” was improper, the isolated remark did not make the trial so unfair that it violated due process.

Regarding Jury Note #12, the court explained that Feliciano’s argument based on New York Criminal Procedure Law § 310.30 raised a state-law issue that generally was not reviewable in a federal habeas case. The court also concluded that the state court’s treatment of the note did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. Even assuming the trial court should have reconvened the parties before sending an exhibit to the jury, the court found any error harmless.

Regarding the police questioning, the trial court had found that Detective Kruse informed Feliciano of his Miranda rights, that Feliciano acknowledged understanding them and continued answering questions, and that Feliciano’s later claim that he requested a lawyer was not credible. The federal court treated those findings as factual determinations presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. It held that Feliciano had not met that burden and therefore was not entitled to relief.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Feliciano’s petition because it was untimely and because the claims also failed on the merits. The court denied a certificate of appealability, finding that Feliciano had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.