Morin v. Bell

Background

On October 17, 2013, Travis Morin was convicted after a jury trial in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, of second-degree robbery and first-degree unlawful imprisonment. He received a determinate 15-year prison term followed by five years of post-release supervision for the robbery conviction. He received a sentence of one-and-one-third to four years for unlawful imprisonment, to run at the same time as the robbery sentence.

Morin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging both convictions and sentences. A magistrate judge, McCarthy, issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the petition should be denied. The district court had previously adopted that recommendation without objection, but later vacated that order at Morin’s request so he could file late objections. Morin filed objections, and the court reviewed them under the standards governing objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Objections and Analysis

Morin raised three objections. First, he argued that the New York court lacked territorial jurisdiction because his participation in the robbery occurred in New Jersey. The court held that this argument was not cognizable in federal habeas review because it concerned state law rather than a question of federal law. The court also stated that disagreement with the jury’s determination about where the crime occurred did not create a federal claim.

Second, Morin argued that his conviction violated the Sixth Amendment’s Vicinage Clause, which concerns the state and district where a criminal trial may occur. The court held that the Supreme Court had not applied that clause to the states, so the state court’s venue decision could not be contrary to established federal law for purposes of habeas relief. The court further held that, even assuming the clause applied, the record supported Westchester County as the proper place for trial. The evidence included the victim being deprived of property in North Salem, Westchester County, and Morin later being arrested wearing the victim’s red shirt and some of the victim’s jewelry.

Third, Morin argued that the jury received incorrect instructions on second-degree robbery. The court held that he had waived this argument by raising it for the first time in his objections rather than in his petition. The court also stated that the argument failed on the merits because the instructions were thorough and consistent with the evidence and applicable law. A footnote stated that Morin might also have failed to properly complete available state remedies on this issue, but the court did not rely on that point because the parties had not briefed it.

Disposition

The court overruled Morin’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. It denied the § 2254 petition. Because Morin had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Morin and close the case.