Smith v. Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility

Background

Michael Smith filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the federal court to grant habeas relief from his New York state convictions. Following a jury trial in New York Supreme Court, New York County, Smith was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, first-degree gang assault, and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 20 years to life and remained incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility.

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the convictions, and the New York Court of Appeals denied further review. Smith later moved in state court to vacate his conviction, but that request was denied. He then filed this federal petition. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended that the petition be denied in full. Smith, who had filed the petition without a lawyer, later submitted objections through counsel.

Claims and standards

Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his kidnapping, gang-assault, and second-degree-murder convictions; alleged that he lacked fair notice of the charges and of the prosecution’s theory of guilt; and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. He also referred to alleged Brady violations and actual innocence.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal court may grant relief from a state conviction only if the state court’s decision contradicted or unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. State factual findings are presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts that presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The district court reviewed specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report de novo and reviewed general or conclusory objections for clear error.

Rulings

The court agreed that Smith’s Brady and actual-innocence claims were not properly presented. The petition did not state facts supporting those claims, and Smith did not file the discovery motion he had said he intended to pursue. The court therefore overruled his first objection.

As to the kidnapping evidence, the court adopted the report’s merits analysis. It concluded that the state appellate court’s determination that the evidence was sufficient was not objectively unreasonable under the federal habeas standard.

The court ruled that Smith’s fair-notice claim had not been adequately presented to the New York Court of Appeals. Because Smith did not show cause for failing to present the claim or resulting prejudice, the court dismissed that claim without reaching its merits.

The court also found no clear error in the report’s conclusions that other federal claims were procedurally barred. It rejected Smith’s argument that attaching or referring generally to earlier appellate briefs had preserved claims for review by New York’s highest court. The court explained that a leave application must clearly identify the claims for which review is sought.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled Smith’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and denied the petition. The court stated that Smith had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. The clerk was directed to close the case.