Curet v. Graham

Background

Jose Curet, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal relief from his state-court criminal conviction. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman issued a 94-page Report and Recommendation on January 14, 2019, recommending that the petition be denied. Curet objected to that recommendation. He later moved for oral argument on his objection.

Legal standard

Under the federal habeas statute, a federal court may grant relief only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or unreasonably applied, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The district judge reviews specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation independently. General or conclusory objections are reviewed only for clear error, meaning the court looks for an obvious mistake in the recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Curet’s objections were generally conclusory and repeated arguments he had already made without explaining why the recommendation was wrong. The court addressed three principal issues:

1. Exclusion of Curet’s statements. Curet objected to the recommendation’s conclusion that he was barred from raising a claim concerning the trial court’s refusal to allow him to introduce his own pretrial statements. The recommendation had also addressed the merits and concluded that the statements were inadmissible hearsay under state law. The court found that Curet did not explain why that analysis was incorrect or identify authority allowing a defendant to introduce his own out-of-court statements in these circumstances.

2. Felony-murder affirmative defense. Curet argued that the state trial court should have submitted an affirmative defense to felony murder to the jury. The recommendation explained that the defense was required to be submitted only if a reasonable view of the evidence supported each element by a preponderance of the evidence. The recommendation found that the evidence Curet identified did not support the defense and instead suggested that he knew serious physical injury was likely when he entered the victims’ apartment with a codefendant and others. The district court agreed, including after independently reviewing this issue.

3. Alleged juror misconduct. Curet claimed that information from outside the trial record entered the jury room and affected the verdict. The recommendation concluded that he had not shown that this information substantially and harmfully affected the jury’s deliberations. The district court noted that the state trial court had held a hearing about the alleged outside information and that Curet had raised the issue in a later petition concerning his appellate lawyer. The court rejected Curet’s argument that the issue had never been properly presented to the state appellate court. It also agreed that, because the juror-misconduct claim lacked merit, Curet could not show that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise it on direct appeal.

Curet also appeared to request an evidentiary hearing. The court found that he had not identified facts suggesting that the case could have produced a different result. After reviewing the rest of the recommendation for clear error, the court found none.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled Curet’s objection and adopted Magistrate Judge Freeman’s Report and Recommendation in full. The court denied Curet’s petition. It also denied his motion for oral argument as moot, directed the clerk to terminate the open motions, close the case, and mail him a copy of the opinion and order.