Ramirez v. Keyser

Background

Timothy Ramirez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to set aside his New York state conviction and sentence. A jury found him guilty of conspiracy in the second degree, two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and attempted assault in the first degree. His sentences totaled fifty-eight and one-third to seventy-five years of imprisonment, and the opinion states that he was serving that sentence at Five Points Correctional Facility.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison, who recommended denying the petition in its entirety. Ramirez objected to parts of that recommendation. Judge Karas reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently and adopted its result.

Claims and Analysis

Ramirez’s petition raised four grounds: a claimed violation of his right to be present during the jury’s sequestration instructions; alleged withholding of favorable or impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States; an allegedly vindictive sentence; and improper prosecutorial comments during summation. His objections addressed the first three claims.

Right to be present. The trial court gave the jury logistical information about sequestration after Ramirez and defense counsel had left the courtroom. The information concerned the hotel, transportation, personal items, the next day’s schedule, and dietary restrictions. The court held that these instructions were ministerial and unrelated to the legal or factual issues at trial, so Ramirez’s absence did not violate his right to be present. The court further held that, even if the absence had been an error, it was not a fundamental trial defect and was harmless because the discussion had no connection to the merits or the jury’s verdict.

Brady/Giglio evidence. Ramirez claimed prosecutors failed to disclose assistance provided to prosecution witness Kim Perez-Colon, including approximately $2,200 in payments. The court found a dispute about whether the prosecution had disclosed the assistance, but concluded that the information was not material. The court relied on the limited examination of Perez-Colon by Ramirez’s counsel, the defense strategy of avoiding evidence about her relocation, the extensive impeachment conducted by counsel for other defendants, and the other evidence connecting Ramirez to the attack. The court held that there was no reasonable likelihood that disclosure would have changed the trial’s result.

Vindictive sentence. Ramirez argued that his sentence was punishment for rejecting an eleven-and-one-half-year plea offer and exercising his right to a jury trial. The court held that his sentences were within the ranges authorized by New York law. It also held that the difference between a plea offer and a sentence after trial, standing alone, does not prove vindictive sentencing. The trial judge’s comments about why people do not plead guilty did not amount to a threat, and the sentencing record included the judge’s statement that Ramirez was not being punished for choosing a jury trial.

Disposition

Judge Karas concluded that the state court had not violated Ramirez’s federal rights and found no error in the magistrate judge’s recommended result. The court adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, and stated that the writ was dismissed with prejudice. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Ramirez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith.