Keita v. Fields

Background

Mulbah Keita, a New York state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas corpus is a procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge unlawful custody. After a jury trial on October 5, 2016, Keita was convicted of attempted rape in the first degree, two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree. The jury acquitted him of the remaining counts. He received an aggregate seven-year sentence.

On direct appeal, Keita argued that the trial court improperly submitted duplicate charges to the jury, should have suppressed a pretrial lineup identification, violated his right to a fair trial by not providing an interpreter, and imposed an excessive sentence. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed his conviction. It held that Keita had not preserved the duplicate-count and interpreter claims under state law, and it rejected the lineup challenge because the age difference between Keita and the fillers did not make the lineup unduly suggestive. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

Claims Raised in the Federal Petition

Keita renewed the four claims from his direct appeal and also raised four claims that he had not presented in state court: ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the jury verdict sheet, denial of the right to testify before the grand jury, a defective reasonable-doubt instruction, and prosecutorial misconduct during summations.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal review of a state conviction is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). For claims decided on the merits by a state court, relief is available only if the state decision conflicted with clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

The court held that the duplicate-count and interpreter claims were not reviewable because the Appellate Division rejected them on independent and adequate state-law grounds: Keita had not preserved them for review. The court rejected the lineup claim, concluding that the Appellate Division’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent. The court also stated that the claim would likely fail even under less deferential review after examining a photograph of the lineup.

The court rejected the excessive-sentence claim as a matter of law. Keita’s seven-year sentence was within the state-law range for a class C violent felony, which the opinion identified as three and one-half to fifteen years. The court therefore concluded that the sentence was not cognizable as a federal habeas claim.

The court treated the four claims not raised in state court as unexhausted, meaning that Keita had not presented them through the state-court process. It held that those claims were procedurally barred because Keita had not shown either a valid reason for the default and resulting harm or that refusing to consider them would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Disposition

For these reasons, Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed Keita’s petition. The court did not issue a certificate of appealability because Keita had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail Keita a copy of the order and close the case.