Paulino v. Royce

Background

Jovanny Paulino, representing himself, sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is serving an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life after a jury convicted him of second-degree murder under New York Penal Law § 125.25(1). Paulino argued that both his trial counsel and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the petition be denied and that no certificate of appealability be issued. No objections were filed. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of every disputed issue.

Threshold issues

The court agreed that the petition was timely. It also agreed that most of Paulino’s claims had been properly presented to the state courts. His claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a hearing under New York Criminal Procedure Law Article 730 was procedurally barred to the extent he raised it in the federal petition.

Trial-counsel claim

The court upheld the rejection of Paulino’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a challenge to whether the evidence proved the required intent for murder. Even assuming the failure was an oversight rather than a deliberate strategy, the proposed motion would have lacked merit. Viewing the evidence in the prosecution’s favor, a rational factfinder could conclude that Paulino intended to cause the victim’s death. The court also relied on the state appellate court’s conclusion that the evidence supported the jury’s finding of homicidal intent. Because the proposed motion would not have changed the outcome, Paulino could not show the required prejudice under the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Appellate-counsel claim

The court also upheld the rejection of Paulino’s claims concerning appellate counsel. Appellate counsel could properly raise unpreserved and state-law issues, and the record showed that counsel did raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness. The court further concluded that there was no evidence in the trial record supporting a claim based on Paulino’s competency. The state courts’ rejection of the appellate-counsel claims was therefore reasonable under the ineffective-assistance standard.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Moses’s Report and Recommendation in full and denied the petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Paulino had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was asked to close the case.