Steinhilber v. Schneidman

Background

Wayne Steinhilber filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking a federal court to review his state-court convictions. He had waived a jury trial and was convicted after a bench trial in Orange County Court of two counts of first-degree burglary, attempted first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree assault, second-degree menacing, and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He received fifteen-year prison sentences on the burglary counts and lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. The Appellate Division also denied his later application for a writ of error coram nobis, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal that decision.

Report and Recommendation and Review

Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended denying the petition in its entirety. Steinhilber objected. The district court explained that specific objections would receive fresh review, while general or conclusory objections would be reviewed only for clear error—an obvious mistake. Because Steinhilber’s objections largely repeated his earlier arguments and were otherwise general and conclusory, the court reviewed those portions for clear error. It also reviewed the portions to which he made no objection for clear error.

Objections

Steinhilber argued that the trial court failed to apply the Molineux balancing test to evidence of prior uncharged crimes and that his trial lawyer was ineffective concerning that issue. He also challenged trial counsel’s failure to seek suppression of evidence or contest warrants, appellate counsel’s handling of alleged transcript inaccuracies and the chain of custody of a sweatshirt, and the magistrate judge’s treatment of those issues. He further argued that the magistrate judge misunderstood his argument concerning alleged Brady violations.

The court found no error, clear or otherwise. It said the magistrate judge had considered and rejected the chain-of-custody argument, including the claim that the victim’s and police’s descriptions of the sweatshirt did not match the item admitted into evidence. The court also said the magistrate judge had considered and rejected Steinhilber’s argument about telephone recordings in which he was identified by his voice. Steinhilber did not identify specific factual inaccuracies, and the district court found none in its review of the recommendation and record.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti adopted the report and recommendation as the opinion of the court and denied the petition. The court instructed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. It also found that Steinhilber had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The opinion does not state that the petition was denied with or without prejudice.

Naming note

The supplied case name is “Steinhilber v. Schneidman,” while the opinion’s caption identifies a respondent as “ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN.”