Winters v. Sticht

Background

A state-court jury found Gregory Winters guilty of second-degree burglary on August 13, 2013. He received a seven-year prison sentence and five years of post-release supervision as a predicate violent felony offender. The state appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied further review.

In the state appellate court, Winters argued that he was improperly denied an adjournment and an access order, that the trial court should have given a limiting instruction concerning an out-of-court statement, and that the prosecutor made improper arguments during closing summation. The state appellate court said he had not preserved those arguments for review, declined to review them in the interest of justice, and alternatively found no basis for reversal because any errors were harmless in light of the evidence of guilt.

Federal Petition and Recommendation

Winters filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state conviction. Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox issued a report and recommendation advising that the petition be denied. He concluded that Winters had not exhausted available state remedies because he had not raised the constitutional claims before the trial court. He also found that Winters had not shown cause and prejudice to excuse the failure, and that Winters did not claim actual innocence.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Winters’s claims were procedurally defaulted. A procedural default occurs when a state prisoner fails to properly present a federal claim in state court and the state courts would now treat the claim as barred. Federal review may still be possible if the petitioner shows cause for the default and resulting prejudice, or establishes actual innocence. The court found that Winters had shown neither a sufficient reason for the default nor prejudice, and he did not assert actual innocence.

The court also held that the claims were barred by an independent and adequate state-law ground. New York’s contemporaneous-objection rule requires a party to make a timely objection to preserve an issue for appellate review. The court found that this rule was firmly established and regularly followed, and that the state appellate court had relied on it in rejecting Winters’s arguments. The federal court therefore could not review the claims on their merits.

Disposition

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and denied Winters’s motion. Judge Loretta A. Preska found that Winters had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so the court did not grant a certificate of appealability. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the Clerk to close the action and deny pending motions as moot, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Winters.