Lopez v. Capra

Background

Baldemiro Lopez, representing himself, filed a petition asking the federal court to review his state convictions under a federal law that permits challenges to unconstitutional custody. He challenged his 2015 conviction and sentence for second-degree burglary, as well as convictions for first-degree criminal contempt, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and resisting arrest.

The case arose from Lopez’s relationship with Tonie Coggins. Coggins testified that Lopez had lived in her apartment, that she later obtained an order of protection requiring him to avoid contact with her, and that he engaged in threatening and violent conduct. After Coggins would not let Lopez back into the apartment, he allegedly banged and kicked the building and rang the doorbell for about two hours. Later, he entered the apartment through a fire escape. Lopez told police that he knew he was not supposed to be there and admitted entering through the fire escape.

At trial, Lopez sought to introduce about 200 pages of certified medical records to challenge testimony that he was physically able to climb the fire escape. The trial judge excluded the records after a brief review, reasoning that the complex medical information could confuse the jury. Lopez therefore presented no evidence in his own defense.

The state appellate court upheld the conviction. It concluded that the burglary evidence was legally sufficient and that the trial judge acted within the judge’s discretion in excluding the medical records. It did not review Lopez’s constitutional right-to-present-a-defense claim because his lawyer had not raised that constitutional objection at trial.

Claims and arguments

Lopez raised two grounds for federal relief:

1. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he entered the apartment intending to commit a crime. He maintained that the evidence showed only that he entered to retrieve his belongings. 2. He argued that excluding his medical records denied him the constitutional right to present a complete defense.

Respondent Michael Capra argued that the burglary conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the constitutional defense claim was procedurally barred because Lopez had not properly preserved it for state appellate review.

Court’s analysis

Defense claim. A state prisoner generally must first present a federal constitutional claim through the state courts. A claim can be procedurally defaulted when the state court rejects it because the petitioner failed to comply with a state procedural rule that independently supports the decision.

Judge Carter held that Lopez’s constitutional defense claim was procedurally defaulted. Lopez’s lawyer objected to the medical-record ruling on evidentiary grounds, including the trial judge’s review of the records and concern that they would confuse the jury. The lawyer did not object that excluding the records violated Lopez’s constitutional rights. The state appellate court therefore treated the constitutional claim as unpreserved and declined to review it in the interest of justice.

The state appellate court also discussed the claim’s merits in the alternative, but Judge Carter explained that this did not eliminate the procedural default. Lopez did not show the required cause and prejudice, or actual innocence, that could excuse the default. The federal court therefore did not grant relief on this claim.

Sufficiency of the evidence. For a federal challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting a state conviction, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and ask whether any rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The federal court must also defer to the jury’s decisions about witness credibility and competing inferences.

Under the applicable New York burglary law, the prosecution had to prove that Lopez knowingly entered or unlawfully remained in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime there. The court agreed that merely entering in violation of the order of protection could not, by itself, supply the required intent to commit a crime.

The court nevertheless found sufficient additional evidence from which the jury could infer that Lopez intended to threaten or harass Coggins. That evidence included his earlier threats, violent conduct toward Coggins, extended banging and kicking at the apartment, and his entry through the fire escape after she refused to let him inside. The court held that the jury could reasonably infer that Lopez intended to commit a crime after entering, even though Lopez offered a competing explanation that he entered to retrieve his belongings.

Disposition

Judge Carter denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the clerk to close the case and send Lopez a copy of the opinion and order. The opinion does not state that the court altered Lopez’s conviction or sentence.