King v. Coveny

Background

Marcus King filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his New York state conviction and sentence. A jury had convicted him of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and one count of second-degree assault. The state court sentenced him to 15 years in prison and five years of post-release supervision.

King’s conviction arose from a shooting on August 30, 2008. At trial, the prosecution introduced a redacted arrest photograph taken on August 1, 2008, to show the length of King’s hair. The prosecution also presented testimony about law enforcement’s efforts over several months to locate King after the shooting. The trial court allowed that testimony but declined to give the jury a consciousness-of-guilt instruction.

King raised three claims in his federal petition: that the photograph denied him due process and a fair trial; that the testimony about efforts to locate him denied him due process and a fair trial; and that his sentence was excessive or retaliatory in light of an earlier plea offer of two to four years.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended that the petition be denied in full. She concluded that the state trial court’s evidentiary decisions did not violate state law or the federal Constitution. She also concluded that King’s sentence was not unconstitutional because the trial court gave a neutral explanation for the sentence and did not treat the plea offer as controlling.

Judge Wang advised the parties that objections were due within 14 days. Neither party objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning a clear mistake in the factual or legal reasoning.

District Court’s Analysis

Judge Failla found no clear error and agreed with Judge Wang’s analysis. The court explained that federal review of a state conviction under Section 2254 is limited. King had to show that the state court’s decision conflicted with clearly established federal law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

For the evidentiary claims, the court agreed that the photograph was admitted for the limited purpose of showing King’s hairstyle and that the police-location testimony was admitted under the state court’s evidentiary rules. The court concluded that the rulings were valid under state law and therefore did not establish a constitutional violation. It also agreed that King had not shown that the evidence deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial.

For the sentencing claim, the court concluded that King’s 15-year sentence was not constitutionally excessive. It also rejected the claim that the sentence was retaliatory because the trial court had explained the sentence by referring to King’s criminal history, the seriousness of the crime, and its timing. The trial court had expressly stated that it was not punishing King for going to trial and that the earlier plea offer was not relevant to the sentence imposed after trial.

Order

The court adopted Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and ordered that the petition be dismissed in its entirety. It further ordered that no certificate of appealability issue because King had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.