Patterson v. Pingotti

Background

Joseph Patterson filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review whether the custody violates federal law. Patterson proceeded pro se, meaning without a lawyer. After a jury trial in Dutchess County Court, he was convicted of attempted murder in the first degree, attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He received concurrent sentences of 25 years to life on the attempted-murder count and 15 years’ imprisonment plus five years of post-release supervision on each of the other two counts.

The New York Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Patterson later sought state-court relief through a motion to vacate the judgment and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis; those efforts, including requests for appellate review and reconsideration, were denied. He then filed this federal petition.

Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison recommended that the petition be denied in its entirety. Patterson filed timely objections. Judge Briccetti reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently and reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error.

Claims and analysis

Patterson argued that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise various alleged failures by trial counsel. The alleged failures included not investigating whether the gun could have fired accidentally, issues concerning Patterson’s vehicle, the history of the Beacon Police Department, and an alleged threat by Officer Martinez; not seeking a change of venue; inadequate communication; not calling certain witnesses; not objecting to or challenging aspects of the trial; and not arguing that the evidence was insufficient. Patterson also alleged that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors deprived him of meaningful representation.

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: Patterson had to show that counsel’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. For appellate counsel, he also had to show under the federal habeas statute that the state court’s rejection of his claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The court concluded that the underlying trial-counsel claims lacked merit and that Patterson therefore could not show a reasonable probability that the omitted arguments would have succeeded on appeal. It rejected his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim.

Patterson also challenged the recommendation that several claims were procedurally barred because he had not raised them in his application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Those claims concerned the jury instruction about police-officer testimony, the grand-jury instructions, the trial judge’s suggestion that the attempted-murder charge be reduced as a remedy for an alleged grand-jury defect, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The court found that Patterson had not shown cause and prejudice sufficient to overcome the procedural bar. It also concluded that his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel arguments could not establish cause because those arguments were themselves meritless, and that he had not shown prejudice from the default.

Patterson made only a conclusory objection concerning ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Applying the clear-error standard to that issue, the court found no error. It also found no clear error in the portions of the recommendation to which Patterson did not object.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti adopted the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court and denied Patterson’s federal petition in its entirety. The Clerk was instructed to enter judgment and close the case. The court determined that Patterson had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.