# Santana v. N/A Warden

> District Court, E.D. New York · February 7, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309202

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** February 7, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309202

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
wer ec see errr rr ree eee ew ee er rrr re WH HX
LEONARDO SANTANA, :
Petitioner, : MEMORANDUM DECISION

-vV- : 17-CV-5860 (DC)
N/A WARDEN, :
Respondent. :

rw ew ere eee ew KH HX

APPEARANCES: LEONARDO SANTANA
Petitioner Pro Se
c/o Virgen Rodriguez
91-12 Jamaica Avenue
Jamaica, NY 11421
LETITIA JAMES, Esq.
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Priscilla Steward, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
28 Liberty Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Attorney for Respondent
CHIN, Circuit Judge:
In 2013, following a jury trial, petitioner Leonardo Santana was convicted
of first-degree assault in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County

The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to refer to petitioner by his
correct name, Leonardo Santana, as reflected in the petition.

(Blumenfeld, J.). He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two-and-a-half

years of post-release supervision. Dkt. 1 at 1; Dkt. 9-1 at 3. His conviction was affirmed
by the Appellate Division, Second Department, People v. Santana, 44 N.Y.5.3d 915 (2d
Dep't 2017) ("Santana I"), and the New York Court of Appeals denied his application for
leave to appeal, People v. Santana, 86 N.E.3d 263 (N.Y. 2017) ("Santana II") (DiFiore, Ch.
J.).
Santana was released from prison on July 19, 2017.2, On September 29
2017, proceeding pro se, Guerrero filed this habeas petition (the "Petition"). Dkt. 1 at 1.
The New York Attorney General's Office, representing Respondent, filed its opposition
to the Petition on February 9, 2018. Dkt. 9, 9-1. Santana filed a reply on March 5, 2018.
Dkt. 11. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 3, 2023.
For the reasons that follow, the Petition is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. — The Facts?
The evidence at trial established the following: On August 18, 2011, when
he was seventeen years old, see Dkt. 10 at 7, Santana was involved in an altercation near

2 See Dkt. Sheet at 1; NYS Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, Incarcerated Lookup,
available at https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov.
8 The facts are drawn principally from the response to the Petition, which sets forth the
facts in detail with citations to the state court record, including the trial transcript. See Dkt. 9, 9-
1, 10. Citations to the state court record, Dkt. 10, are to the continuous pagination at the bottom
of each page.

Franklin K. Lane High School in Queens, see id. at 8. He was walking with five or six
others when they encountered Akil Francis and three companions. Id. Three days
earlier, Santana and Francis had had an argument in the school cafeteria that almost
escalated into a fight; Santana threatened Francis and yelled slurs at him, and Francis
threw food at Santana. Dkt. 9-1 at 2-3.
Santana separated himself from his friends and approached the other

group. Santana bumped Francis with his shoulder and then punched Francis in the
face. Francis ran across the street with Santana (and his friends) close behind. Across
the street, Francis saw and grabbed a wooden broom stick. Santana took a fighting
stance and approached Francis, with fists raised. Francis then struck Santana twice
with the stick. Id. at 3.
A female approached Santana with an open book bag; Santana reached in
and retrieved an object, a metal object the size of a pen. Santana then lunged at Francis
and stabbed him with the object. Francis dropped the broomstick. Santana then
grabbed Francis by the back of his neck and struck him repeatedly with his right hand.
Francis pushed Santana off and ran across the street into a parking lot, bleeding from
the left side of his body and having difficulty breathing. He went into a supermarket
seeking help. Two of his friends followed and applied pressure to Francis's wound as
he coughed up blood and blacked out. Id. at 4-5.

An emergency medical technician (the "EMT") responded and found
Francis bleeding from what appeared to be a puncture wound in the chest. He cut

away Francis's shirt and saw several small, round puncture wounds in Francis's
abdomen, under his armpit, and close to his lung. Francis was taken to a hospital,
where he was treated for a collapsed lung and stab wounds to his abdomen, chest, back,
and armpit. Surgery was eventually performed to repair the collapsed lung. Id. at 4-6.

He spent two days in the hospital, and, after being discharged, could no longer
participate in sports and had frequent blackouts due to decreased lung capacity. Id. at 6

(citing Francis's testimony at trial).
A police officer reporting to the scene arrested two of Santana's friends.

Santana was arrested a short time later in his home. Id. at 5.

B. Procedural History
1. State Court Proceedings
Santana was indicted in 2012 in Queens County for attempted murder in

the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110, 125.25(1)), assault in the first degree (N.Y.
Penal Law § 120.10(1)), and two counts of assault in the second degree (N.Y. Penal Law

§ 120.05(1), (2)). Dkt. 10 at 39. The two second-degree assault charges were dismissed
by the People before trial. Id. at 39 & n.1.
Trial commenced on April 10, 2013. Francis and three of his companions
testified for the People. Dkt. 9-1 at 2-4. The EMT who administered aid at the scene

and the doctor who later performed the surgery both testified to the extent of Francis's
wounds, and Francis's medical records were admitted into evidence. Id. at 4-6.
Santana presented a substantial defense case, taking the stand himself and
calling several other witnesses. Santana testified that: Francis was the instigator
because Francis punched him first and then hit him with a stick; two of Francis's
companions also were punching him; he was afraid for his life; one of Francis's
companions pulled out and dropped a knife; Santana picked up the knife and stabbed
Francis, repeatedly, to stop Francis and his friends from continuing to attack him.
Santana testified he then ran home. He had a bruise on his left arm where Francis had
hit him with the stick. Id. at 6-9.
Santana was acquitted of second-degree attempted murder and convicted
of first-degree assault. Dkt. 10 at 39.
At sentencing, defense counsel requested that Santana be adjudicated as a
youthful offender and asked for a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and five years’
probation or, alternatively, a one-year term of incarceration with youthful offender

treatment. The People opposed. Id. at 50. The trial court reviewed the factors relevant

to the issue, including Santana's age and family circumstances and the seriousness of
the crime. The court observed that "[t]he jury convicted him of stabbing someone three
times. He had the option after initiating this, seeing the complainant go across the

street to get a weapon, to take another route home." Dkt. 10-2 at 454. Instead

behaving like a seventeen-year old high school student, the court observed, Santana
stabbed Francis three times and concluded that "the sharp object of stabbing someone
three times .. . requires punishment as an adult." Id. at 453-54. The court denied
youthful offender treatment. The court noted that the crime carried up to twenty-five
years in prison, but in light of Santana's age, the court sentenced Santana to the
minimum of five years’ imprisonment as well as two-and-a-half years of post-release
supervision. Id. at 455.
Represented by counsel, Santana appealed to the Appellate Division,
Second Department. He raised two claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence to

support the assault conviction because the People failed to prove that (a) he was
unjustified in stabbing Francis and (b) Francis suffered serious physical injury as
required for a first-degree assault conviction, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to

grant him youthful offender treatment. See Dkt. 10 at 3, 37.
By decision dated January 25, 2017, the Appellate Division affirmed the
conviction. See Santana L, 44 N.Y.S.3d at 915-16. The court held that the evidence was
"legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt."
Id. at 915. It also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that
Francis had sustained a serious physical injury. Id. The court wrote that upon
reviewing the record, "we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the

weight of the evidence." Id. at 915-16 (citation omitted). Finally, as to the trial court's
refusal to grant Santana youthful offender status, the Appellate Division concluded:
Under the circumstances of this case, including the serious nature of the
crime, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in
denying the defendant youthful offender treatment, and we decline to
disturb that determination.
Id. at 916 (citations omitted).
Santana applied for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals,
raising the claims he had raised in the Appellate Division. Dkt. 10 at 80-99. The Court
of Appeals denied leave. Santana Il, 86 N.E.3d at 263.

2. Proceedings in This Court
Santana filed his Petition pro se, asserting three claims.* He first contends
that his conviction "involved an unreasonable application of[] clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States ....no
reasonable juror could agree on state court decision.” Dkt. 1 at 5-6. He does not identify

4 Santana filed the Petition on September 29, 2017, after he had completed his term of
imprisonment. See Docket Sheet at 1. The petition was timely, as it was filed within one year of
the Court of Appeals’ denial of leave to appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1). Although it appears
that Santana has now also completed his two-and-a-half year term of post-release supervision,
the petition is not moot to the extent it challenges his conviction because the conviction may
carry collateral consequences, including, for example, immigration consequences. See United
States v. Mercurris, 192 F.3d 290, 293 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Probber, 170 F.3d 345, 348 (2d
Cir. 1999); Johnson v. Thompson, No. 20-CV-0836, 2022 WL 3099228 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2022). To
the extent the petition challenges the sentence, however, the petition is moot. See, e.g.,
McCormick v. Annucci, No. 17-CV-0948, 2020 WL 1935608, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020)
(dismissing as moot petitioner's habeas claim challenging only the calculation of his sentence).

any Supreme Court decision, nor does he elaborate on or explain the basis for this
claim. Id. Second, he asserts, again without explanation or elaboration, that his

conviction "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the state court proceeding.” Id. at 7-8. As to his third claim,
Santana writes: "There is an absence of available state corrective process to deal with
youthful offender status; and circumstances exist in N.Y. that render 'Y.O.' status
discretionary process ‘ineffective’ to protect my rights. All states, except N.Y., have
changed Y.O. rules." Id. at 8-9.
The Attorney General's Office filed a response to the Petition in February
2018. Dkt. 9, 9-1. In his pro se reply, filed March 5, 2018, Santana addressed what he
perceived to be inadequacies in the New York's process for determining youthful
offender status, without further discussion of his sufficiency claims. See Dkt. 11.
DISCUSSION
I. Federal Review of State Convictions
A federal court may not grant a habeas petition on a claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in state court unless that adjudication:
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Waiters v. Lee, 857 F.3d 466, 477 (2d Cir. 2017); Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97-98 (2011). Hence, when a claim is adjudicated on the merits, the

state court's decision must be accorded "substantial deference." Fischer v. Smith, 780
F.3d 556, 560 (2d Cir. 2015). "A federal court may reverse a state court ruling only
where it was 'so lacking in justification that there was .. . [no] possibility for fairminded
disagreement.” Vega v. Walsh, 669 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103); see also Wetzel v. Lambert, 565 U.S. 520, 524 (2012).
When considering a sufficiency argument on habeas review, "[a] federal

court must look to state law to determine the elements of the crime." Fama v. Comm'r of
Corr. Servs., 235 F.3d 804, 811 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A federal court "must
consider whether, as a matter of federal law, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
find that the prosecution proved the substantive elements of the crime as defined by
state law." Einaugler v. Sup. Ct. of N.Y., 109 F.3d 836, 839 (2d Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted). The reviewing court "must consider the evidence in the light most favorable

to the prosecution and make all inferences in its favor." Fama, 235 F.2d at 811 (citation
omitted). A "petitioner bears a very heavy burden in convincing a federal habeas court

to grant a petition on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence." Id. (citation
omitted). Indeed, "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a
sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with
the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was

‘objectively unreasonable.” Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 651 (2012) (per curiam)
(quoting Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 2 (2011) (per curiam)).
II. Analysis
Santana's Petition does not clearly identify the grounds on which he is
challenging his conviction. I liberally construe his Petition, see Johnson v. Fogg, 653 F.2d

750, 753 (2d Cir. 1981), to assert the two grounds he raised on direct appeal: (1)
sufficiency of the evidence and (2) the trial court's refusal to grant him youthful
offender status. While Santana also argues that in New York there is insufficient
"available state corrective process to deal with youthful offender status," that is not a

matter that can be raised in a habeas petition other than to the extent it relates to his

conviction or sentence in this case. See Boudin v. Thomas, 732 F.2d 1107, 1114 (2d Cir.
1984) (distinguishing habeas petitions meant to "vindicate[e] individual rights based on
the Constitution" from other civil actions undertaken to "refin[e] rules and policy”). I
address the two claims that are properly before the Court.
A. The Sufficiency of the Evidence
There are two parts to Santana's sufficiency claim: while he concedes that
he intentionally stabbed Francis, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to (1)
disprove his defense of justification and (2) prove that Francis suffered a serious
physical injury. The Appellate Division rejected both arguments on the merits. See

10

Santana I, 44 N.Y.S.3d at 915-16. Accordingly, the Appellate Division's decision must be
accorded "substantial deference." Fischer, 780 F.3d at 560.
The Appellate Division's rejection of the sufficiency argument was
reasonable, in both respects.
First, under New York law, the use of deadly physical force is justified
when a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend himself from
what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. See
N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15(1), (2). The use of deadly physical force is not justified,
however, if the defendant knows that he can with complete safety avoid the necessity of
using force by retreating. See id. § 35.15(2)(a); People v. Goetz, 497 N.E.2d 41, 47 (N.Y.
1986). Moreover, "[e]ven if a defendant is justified in using deadly physical force at the
beginning of a single, ongoing encounter with an assailant, his right to use that force
terminates at the point where he can no longer reasonably believe that the assailant still

poses a threat to him." People v. Del-Debbio, 664 N.Y.S.2d 28, 28 (Ist Dep’t 1997).
Here, there was ample testimony contradicting Santana's claim that he
stabbed Francis only to defend himself from the use of deadly force. The People's
witnesses testified that Santana initiated the confrontation by shoving and punching
Francis and that Santana continued the confrontation by following Francis across the

street. The witnesses testified that after Francis picked up a broomstick, rather than
disengage and retreat, Santana took a fighting stance and armed himself with a knife

11

provided by a friend. They further testified that after Santana lunged at and stabbed
Francis, Francis dropped the stick; again, instead of disengaging and retreating, Santana
grabbed Francis and stabbed him repeatedly. The medical evidence confirmed that
Francis was stabbed repeatedly. See Dkt. 9-1 at 2-6. Even assuming Santana was
justified in using deadly force when Francis wielded the broomstick, the jury could
have reasonably found that once Santana stabbed Francis and saw Francis drop the
stick, Santana could not have reasonably believed that Francis still posed a threat to
him. See id. at 14-15.
Santana and his witnesses told a different story. See id. at 6-9. But, as the
Appellate Division held, the jury was entitled to believe the People's witnesses and
reject the testimony of Santana and his witnesses. See Santana I, 44 N.Y.S.3d at 915; see
also Maldonado v. Scully, 86 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 1996) ("assessments of the weight of the
evidence or the credibility of witnesses are for the jury and not grounds for reversal on
[habeas] appeal"); Wheel v. Robinson, 34 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 1994) ("A federal habeas

corpus court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences

must presume -- even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record -- that the trier of
fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that
resolution.") (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 326 (1979)). The Appellate
Division's conclusion that the People disproved the justification defense is reasonable.

12

Second, the Penal Law defines a "serious physical injury” as "physical
injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious or
protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” N.Y. Penal Law § 10.00(10).
The record here contains substantial evidence that Francis suffered a
serious physical injury. He was stabbed multiple times, in the abdomen, armpit, and
close to his lung. The medical evidence established that he suffered a collapsed lung
that required surgery to repair. "Courts in New York have held that proof of a
collapsed lung is sufficient to prove 'serious physical injury’ so as to sustain a first
degree assault conviction.” Brown v. Graham, No. 10-CV-6281, 2011 WL 3476526, at *5
(W.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2011) (citing People v. Thompson, 639 N.Y.S.2d 52, 53 (2d Dep't 1996);
People v. Wright, 482. N.Y.S.2d 591, 592 (4th Dep't 1984)); see In re Justin G., 961 N.Y.S.2d
714, 715 (4th Dep't 2013).
Francis also testified that he suffered from diminished lung capacity after
his surgery and that, as a result of this condition, he experienced blackouts and was
unable to engage in physical activities he previously had enjoyed. Dkt. 9-1 at 5-6. This
testimony was sufficient to establish that Francis suffered a protracted impairment of
health or the function of a bodily organ. See, e.g., People v. Moreno, 650 N.Y.S.2d 306, 306
(2d Dep't 1996); People v. Braxton, 593 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56 (2d Dep't 1993). The Appellate

13

Division's conclusion that the People proved Francis sustained a serious physical injury
is reasonable.
Accordingly, Santana's sufficiency of the evidence claim fails.
B. The Youthful Offender Determination
Santana's claim that the trial court erred in refusing to accord him
youthful offender treatment is not a basis for habeas relief.
First, as noted above, to the extent Santana is challenging his sentence by
contending he should have received a lower sentence as a youthful offender, the claim
is moot because he has completed both his term of imprisonment and his post-release
supervision. See supran.4. Second, to the extent the claim is not moot, it fails on the
merits.
Under New York law, the decision whether to grant a defendant youthful
offender treatment is a discretionary one, and the sentencing court has wide discretion
in this respect. See United States ex rel. Frasier v. Casscles, 531 F.2d 645, 647 (2d Cir. 1976)
(citations omitted); People v. Victor J., 724 N.Y.S.2d 162, 163 (1st Dep't 2001). Moreover, a
defendant does not have a constitutional right to youthful offender treatment. See
Auyeung v. David, No. 00-CV-1353 (GEL), 2000 WL 1877036, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26,
2000) ("it is well established that the United States Constitution grants no independent
due process right either to youthful offender treatment or to any particular procedure
for denying it").

14

Here, the Appellate Division addressed the claim on the merits,
concluding that the trial court "did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying
the defendant youthful offender treatment." Santana I, 44 N.Y.S.3d at 916. That decision
is entitled to deference.
The trial court's decision not to grant Santana youthful offender treatment

was, as the Appellate Division concluded, reasonable. As the jury found, Santana
initiated the encounter, escalated what could have been a high-school fracas into a
deadly encounter, stabbed Francis, and then, instead of disengaging and walking away,
stabbed him again and again. Moreover, while the trial court decided to treat Santana

as an adult, the court took his youth into account, sentencing him to the minimum
prison term possible. See Dkt. 10-2 at 435-55; N.Y. Penal Law § 70.02(3)(a). The trial
court's decision was fairminded and reasonable.
This claim fails as well.
CONCLUSION
Santana has failed to show a basis for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Accordingly, his Petition is denied. Additionally, I decline to issue a certificate of
appealability because Santana has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), I certify
that any appeal taken from this decision and order would not be taken in good faith.

15

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this

case. The Clerk shall also mail copies of this memorandum decision and the judgment
to Santana at his last known address.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
February 7, 2023 ()
DENNY CHI
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting By Designation

16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10309202. Public record. Not legal advice.