Alfonso v.LaManna

Background

Justin Alfonso, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his New York state conviction. A jury convicted him of conspiracy in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, attempted gang assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

The charges arose from a March 2012 shooting at an apartment. The opinion states that Alfonso and other members of the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation went to the apartment pursuant to an order to kill Ruben Rivera and Kym Perez-Colon. The opinion states that Alfonso shot Rivera and Perez-Colon, and that both victims later identified him. Three co-defendants also testified about Alfonso’s involvement. Other evidence included surveillance video, Perez-Colon’s identification of Alfonso from a photo array, and Alfonso’s assistance in locating the pistol used in the shooting.

During police questioning, Detective Robert Perrotta gave Alfonso Miranda warnings but described the rights form as a “bullshit form,” told Alfonso that speaking could help him, and made a comment about physically bouncing him off walls. Alfonso said that he wanted a lawyer present but would talk because no lawyer was available. He also asked for his mother to be present. After the questioning, Alfonso led police to the pistol.

The New York trial court denied Alfonso’s request to suppress his statements. On direct appeal, however, the New York Appellate Division held that the detective’s tactics undermined the Miranda warnings and made them ineffective. The Appellate Division nevertheless affirmed the conviction, finding the constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The New York Court of Appeals declined to review the case further.

Federal Petition and Report

Alfonso raised seven challenges in his federal petition, including claims concerning the Miranda warnings, Perez-Colon’s identification, his absence during part of the proceedings, the admission of a 911 call, the sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, the jury instructions, and sentencing. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison recommended denying the petition in its entirety.

Alfonso objected only to the recommendation concerning his post-arrest statements. He argued that the courts failed to consider his age during the interrogation and that the Miranda violation could not be harmless because the police found the pistol only after he disclosed its location and the remaining evidence was allegedly hearsay.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Karas reviewed the objected-to portions of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and reviewed the remaining portions for clear error. The court did not reconsider whether the Miranda warnings were defective because the New York Appellate Division had already found that they were. Instead, the issue was whether admitting Alfonso’s statements had a substantial and harmful effect on the jury’s verdict.

The court rejected Alfonso’s argument about his age. It explained that the relevant question was whether the admission of the statements was harmless, not whether the state appellate court had identified every possible reason that the Miranda warnings were ineffective. The court also stated that the failure to mention Alfonso’s age did not make the state court’s decision unreasonable under the federal standard governing review of state convictions.

The court also rejected Alfonso’s argument that the remaining evidence was insufficient or consisted entirely of hearsay. It emphasized that both victims identified Alfonso as the shooter. The court also relied on testimony from former co-defendants, surveillance video showing Alfonso entering and leaving the apartment around the time of the shooting, and Perez-Colon’s identification of Alfonso in a photo array. The court concluded that Alfonso’s statement locating the pistol was not critical to the prosecution’s case and did not have a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict.

Disposition

Judge Karas adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Alfonso’s federal petition, and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Jamie LaManna, send the order to Alfonso, and close the case. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith.