Rosado v. Yelich

Background

Froilan Rosado filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a procedure allowing a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review certain constitutional or federal-law errors in the state conviction. Rosado challenged his New York conviction for sex trafficking under New York Penal Law § 230.34(5)(a), along with convictions for two counts of promoting prostitution in the third degree.

The sex-trafficking charge required proof that Rosado intentionally advanced or profited from prostitution by using force, or by a plan or pattern that compelled or induced a person to engage in prostitution through fear that Rosado or another person would cause physical injury, serious physical injury, or death.

Rosado was arrested during a prostitution investigation on December 19, 2014. After a jury trial, he was convicted on September 15, 2015, and sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate prison term of 7 to 14 years. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied permission to appeal.

Claims and procedural history

Rosado’s federal petition raised three arguments: the evidence was legally insufficient and against the weight of the evidence; the trial court violated his due-process rights by not questioning jurors about possible premature deliberations; and his sentence was excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice.

The respondent argued that the evidence challenge should be rejected because the state appellate court reasonably applied federal law, and that the other two claims were not claims that could be considered in a federal petition of this type. Rosado later conceded that the second and third claims were not legally available in this proceeding. The court therefore considered only the evidence-sufficiency claim.

Legal standard

For a federal challenge to the evidence supporting a state conviction, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Relief is available only if no rational fact-finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the trial evidence. The federal court must also defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and its decisions about the weight of the evidence.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed with the state appellate court that the evidence was legally sufficient. Rhinette Guerrero testified that, during the period covered by the conviction, she did not want to go to a hotel appointment because she suspected the client might be a police officer. According to her testimony, Rosado put his hands on her throat and told her to go make money. She left the car because she feared he would squeeze her throat, felt scared, went to the appointment, had sex for pay, and gave Rosado part of the money.

Guerrero also testified that she continued working for Rosado afterward and was afraid of him, especially when he used cocaine. The court concluded that this testimony supported the jury’s finding that Rosado used force to compel Guerrero to engage in prostitution.

Rosado pointed to matters that he believed undermined Guerrero’s credibility, including her childhood, drug use, later prostitution history, and concern about being prosecuted herself. The court held that evaluating those matters and deciding whether to believe Guerrero were functions of the jury, not grounds for federal relief. When trial evidence supports conflicting inferences, a federal habeas court must presume that the jury resolved those conflicts in favor of the prosecution.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Rosado’s petition for federal relief. The opinion did not grant relief on any of the three arguments.