# Baldwin v. Wolcott

> District Court, W.D. New York · March 11, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367021

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. New York
- **Decided:** March 11, 2024
- **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/10367021

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that while inconsistency in verdicts was “undisputed,” there was “no reason to vacate [the defendant]’s conviction merely because the verdicts cannot be rationally reconciled”
- stating that the only “clearly established” legal principal in the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is that “[a] gross disproportionality principle is applicable to sentences for terms of years”
- holding that, where the Appellate Division reviewed the legal insufficiency claim despite it being unpreserved, the petitioner could not claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve the issue for appeal
- holding that the petitioner did not raise a cognizable federal claim by seeking to prove that the state court abused its sentencing discretion in disregarding his psychiatric reports

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JAMES BALDWIN, DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner,
V. 6:20-CV-06989 EAW
JULIE WOLCOTT,!
Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se petitioner James Baldwin (“Petitioner”), a prisoner in Respondent’s custody,”
seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1). Petitioner challenges
the constitutionality of the judgment entered against him on August 13, 2010, in New York
State Supreme Court, Erie County (Boller, J.). (/d. at 1).> Petitioner was convicted after a
jury trial of one count of second-degree arson (New York Penal Law (“P.L.”) § 150.15).
(Id.). He is presently serving a 25-year determinate sentence of imprisonment, to be

Julie Wolcott is the current Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, where
Petitioner is incarcerated. See https://doccs.ny.gov/location/attica-correctional-facility
(last accessed Mar. 11, 2024); see also infran.2. The Clerk of Court accordingly is directed
to update the caption to replace Joseph Noeth with Julie Wolcott.
See New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
Incarcerated Lookup, available at https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/ (search results for
DIN 10B2568) (last accessed Feb. 29, 2024).
3 Page citations to pleadings filed by Petitioner are to the pagination automatically
generated by the Court’s case management and electronic filing system (CM/ECF) and
located in the header of each page. Page citations to Respondent’s pleadings are to the
original pagination.
-l-

followed by five years’ post-release supervision. For the reasons below, the request for a
writ of habeas corpus is denied, and the petition is dismissed.
Il. BACKGROUND
A. Indictment and Trial
An Erie County grand jury returned an indictment charging Petitioner with one
count of second-degree arson (P.L. § 150.15) and one count of second-degree burglary
(P.L. § 140.25(2)). See Erie County Indictment No. 01297-2009, Respondent’s Exhibit
(“Resp’t Ex.”) A.* The indictment alleged that on May 16, 2008, Petitioner intentionally
damaged the building at 55 Barthel Street in the City of Buffalo by starting a fire when
another person who was not a participant in the crime was in the building. /d. at 1. The
indictment further alleged that on May 16, 2008, Petitioner intentionally and unlawfully
entered the dwelling of Jacqueline Holloman (“Holloman”) with intent to commit a crime
therein. /d. at 1-2.
Petitioner’s case proceeded to a jury trial in New York State Supreme Court, Erie
County, before Acting Supreme Court Justice M. William Boller (“trial court’). A
summary of the relevant testimony follows.°

4 Respondent’s Exhibit A consists of the Erie County District Attorney’s case file and
the transcripts from Petitioner’s criminal proceeding. These documents were manually
filed by Respondent in connection with his answer to the petition. Respondent also
manually filed the briefs and orders in connection with Petitioner’s direct appeal in a
separately bound appendix. (Resp’t Exs. B and C).
“In view of [Petitioner]’s conviction, [the Court] summarize[s] the facts in the light
most favorable to the verdict.” Garbutt v. Conway, 668 F.3d 79, 80 (2d Cir. 2012) (per
curiam) (citing United States v. Riggi, 541 F.3d 94, 96 (2d Cir. 2008)).
-2-

In May 2008, Holloman was living in the lower apartment of a duplex at 55 Barthel
Street with her two sons, Terrence James (“Terrence”) and Anthony; her brother, Randy;
and Randy’s girlfriend, Jeanie. (Holloman: 340-41; Terrence: 253).° Randy and Jeanie
shared the bedroom in the front of the house, Holloman’s sons shared the middle bedroom,
and Holloman had the bedroom in the rear of the house. (Holloman: 342-44; Terrence:
257). The front window of the house did not lock properly, and sometimes Randy and
Jeanie would use it to get into the house if Holloman was not home. (Holloman: 402-03).
Petitioner lived in the upstairs apartment at 55 Barthel Street with Michael
Blackmon (“Blackmon”) for about five years until early May 2008. (Blackmon: 278-79;
Holloman: 344-45). Blackmon had to ask Petitioner to leave because he was not paying
rent and as of May 16, 2008, Petitioner no longer lived there. (Blackmon: 279).
After moving out of Barthel Street, Petitioner moved into the downstairs apartment
at 756 East Amherst Street. His friends Tina Johnson (“Johnson”) and Kenneth Belle
(“Belle”) lived upstairs. (Johnson: 288-89).
Petitioner and Holloman dated for two or three months prior to May 16, 2008.
(Holloman: 346). While they were dating, Holloman told Petitioner about the window
which did not lock and how Randy sometimes used it to get in and out of the house.

6 Citations to “[name]: [page number]” refer to pages of a particular witness’s trial
testimony. Citations to “T.” refer to pages of the trial transcript that do not reflect witness
testimony. Citations to “S.” refer to pages of the sentencing transcript. Page citations to
the transcripts are to the original pagination.
-3-

(Holloman: 403). This aggravated her and she mentioned to Petitioner that she did not
want him also using that window to go in and out of the house. (Holloman: 404).
Shortly before May 16, 2008, Holloman broke up with Petitioner because he was

“smothering” her and she just “couldn’t breathe.” (Holloman: 345-46, 347). She ended
the relationship by “[b]asically ignor[ing] him.” (Holloman: 346). Petitioner kept calling
her and driving by her house, wanting to “know what was wrong with [her].” (Holloman:
348).
On May 15, 2008, Terrence saw Petitioner at the corner of Barthel and Genesee

Streets, sitting in his parked taxicab, and watching their house through binoculars.
(Terrence: 272).
On the evening of May 16, 2008, Holloman and her two sons went to a fundraiser
at the Golden Nugget on Fillmore Avenue. (Holloman: 349; Terrence: 254-56). Petitioner
wanted to go, but Holloman did not want him to attend and did not buy him a ticket.

(Holloman: 350-51).
Holloman and her sons returned from the fundraiser between 11 p.m. and midnight.
(Holloman: 353; Terrence: 255). Randy and Jeanie also were home. (Holloman: 354;
Terrence: 256-57). Holloman and her sons went to her bedroom in the rear of the apartment
to watch television. (Holloman: 355; Terrence: 259-60). They observed nothing unusual

about the boys’ bedroom. (Holloman: 355-56; Terrence: 259).
Not long after Holloman and her sons returned home, Petitioner appeared at her
bedroom window and began banging on it; he also tried to open it. (Holloman: 356-58;
Terrence: 260-61). While banging on the window and demanding to be let in, Petitioner
repeatedly called Holloman’s cell phone. (Holloman: 358-59). Holloman had Terrence
answer the phone and tell Petitioner that he could not let Petitioner in because Holloman
was not home. (Holloman: 359; Terrence: 263). Petitioner told Terrence that he was

“wrong” for not allowing him inside. (Holloman: 359; Terrence: 263, 273). Petitioner
continued to bang on the window and call Holloman’s phone. (Holloman: 357, 359;
Terrence: 263). This went on for about 40 minutes to an hour. (Holloman: 359-60;
Terrence: 263).
Holloman and Terrence heard Blackmon come down the stairs at the back of the

house and go out onto the porch. (Holloman: 360-61; Terrence: 264). Petitioner asked
Blackmon if he wanted to drink some beer, and Blackmon said yes. (Holloman: 360-61).
For a while, there were no phone calls or banging on the windows. (Holloman: 361-62;
Terrence: 264).
Petitioner gave Blackmon some money to go buy beer and cigarettes; when

Blackmon returned they spent about an hour smoking cigarettes and drinking beer in his
apartment. (Blackmon: 281-82). Blackmon knew Petitioner to be a smoker. (T: 282).
Petitioner told Blackmon he “didn’t need” Holloman, could “do without her,” and could
“get any woman he want[ed].” (Blackmon: 283). Petitioner said he was “mad” that
Holloman refused to let him in. (Blackmon: 283-84).

After Petitioner left Blackmon’s apartment, he started banging on Holloman’s
window again. (Holloman: 361-62; Terrence: 264-65; Blackmon: 282-83, 284). This went
on for another 15 or 20 minutes. (Holloman: 362; Terrence: 265; Holloman: 284).
Holloman, Terrence, and Anthony eventually fell asleep. (Holloman: 362-63;
Terrence: 265-66). They woke up to Randy and Jeanie shouting that there was a fire and
that they had to get out of the house. (Holloman: 363; Terrence: 266). Randy broke the

bedroom window, and Terrence jumped out. (Holloman: 364; Terrence: 266). Holloman
handed Anthony to Randy through the window. (Holloman: 364; Terrence: 268). Once
outside, Holloman could see that the fire was coming from the boys’ bedroom in the middle
of the house. (Holloman: 365). The window to that bedroom eventually exploded.
(Holloman: 366).

After the fire department had arrived but while the fire still was burning, Terrence
saw Petitioner at the corner of Barthel Street, about two houses down from their house.
(Terrence: 269-70). Petitioner was walking toward their house, but when he saw Terrence,
he turned around and walked the other way. (Terrence: 270).
Jermaine Long (“Long”), Petitioner’s former coworker at Cold Spring Taxi, picked

Petitioner up from Earl’s Lounge sometime between 11 p.m. on May 16, 2008, and 3 a.m.
on May 17, 2008. (Long: 312). At Petitioner’s request, they drove in Long’s cab over to
Barthel Street to see the fire. (Id.). They circled the block but could not get down the street
due to the emergency responders’ presence. (Long: 312-13). After that, they went to a bar
and then to a store. (Long: 313). During the time they were together, Petitioner asked

Long to drive by Barthel Street about five or six times; Long took him there about three
times total. (Long: 314). He eventually dropped Petitioner off at his apartment on East
Amherst Street. (Long: 315).
When Petitioner got home, he went to Johnson and Belle’s apartment and woke
them up. (Johnson: 290-91). Petitioner “grabbed” Johnson and Belle, “kissed [them] on
the cheek,” and said that he “loved” them and that they were his friends. (Johnson: 292;

Belle: 321). He also said that “no bitch ignores him.” (Johnson: 292; Belle: 321). The
three of them spent some time in Petitioner’s apartment, talking and drinking wine.
(Johnson: 291-92; Belle: 321).
When a story about the fire came on the morning news, Petitioner said, “turn this
shit off, I don’t want to see that.” (Belle: 323-24). He told Belle, “I did it,” referring to

the fire. (Belle: 324). Petitioner separately told Johnson, “I got that bitch, I burned that
bitch down.” (Johnson: 292). Johnson knew he was talking about Holloman’s house
because the fire had just been reported on the news. (Johnson: 292-93). Johnson replied,
“I told you not to do that.” (Johnson: 293).
About two weeks after the fire, Holloman accused Petitioner of setting it.

(Holloman: 368). Petitioner said, “I swear I didn’t set your house on fire,” gave her $100,
and told her to call him if she needed anything. (Holloman: 368).
Sometime between May 16 and November 2008, Holloman resumed her
relationship with Petitioner and moved in with him. (Holloman: 369). Terrence and
Anthony stayed with Holloman’s sister. (Holloman: 369-71).

During an argument in the middle of November 2008, Holloman told Petitioner that
she knew he set the fire. (Holloman: 368). Petitioner replied that “he wanted to hold [her],
and he thought someone was in there.” (Holloman: 368-69, 373-74).
The fire marshal for the City of Buffalo Fire Department, George Arthur, Jr.
(“Arthur”), investigated the scene. Based on the amount of charring in the wood and the
fire damage to the ceiling, he concluded that the fire originated in the middle bedroom.
(Arthur: 413, 417-19). Accidental causes such as a dropped cigarette or careless cooking
were ruled out, leaving the “human element” as the only possible cause for the fire.
(Arthur: 420-22).
After the prosecution rested, the defense made a motion for a trial order of dismissal,
which was denied. (T: 449-54). Thereafter, the defense rested without calling any
witnesses. (T: 455).
The trial court charged the jury on the two counts in the indictment. (T: 517-20).
The jury returned a verdict acquitting Petitioner of the burglary charge and convicting him
of the arson charge. (T: 526).
Prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a counseled motion to set aside the verdict under
New York Criminal Procedure Law (“C.P.L.’””) § 330.30(1) (“330 motion”).’ On August
13, 2010, the parties appeared for sentencing, and the trial court heard oral argument on
the 330 motion. (S: 2-5). Petitioner contended that the guilty verdict on the second-degree
arson count was inconsistent with the acquittal on the second-degree burglary count
alleging that he unlawfully entered a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein.
(S: 2-4). Petitioner noted the fire marshal’s testimony that the fire started inside the house,
not outside the house, and that it was not caused by something tossed through the window

7 The 330 motion is not in the state court records filed by Respondent.
-8-

since the window blew out during the fire. (S: 2-3). Petitioner argued that to find him
guilty of arson, the jury had to conclude he entered the house. (S: 3). However, the jury
acquitted him of burglary, which meant it did not find he entered the house. (S: 3-4). The

prosecutor opposed the motion as untimely and unpreserved. (S: 4).
The trial court found the verdict was not inconsistent but “merely that the jury did
not find beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of” second-degree burglary. (S: 5).
The trial court proceeded to sentence Petitioner to a determinate term of 25 years’
imprisonment to be followed by five years’ post-release supervision. (S: 7).

B. Direct Appeal
Represented by new counsel, Petitioner pursued a direct appeal of his conviction.
See Resp’t Ex. B. On June 14, 2019, the judgment was unanimously affirmed by the
Appellate Division, Fourth Department, of New York State Supreme Court (“Appellate
Division”). People v. Baldwin, 173 A.D.3d 1748 (4th Dep’t 2019). Petitioner sought leave
to appeal as to all issues raised in his appellate brief. See Resp’t Ex. C. The New York

Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on August 23, 2019. People v. Baldwin, 34 N.Y.3d
928 (2019).
C. Federal Habeas Proceeding
Petitioner timely filed the petition on November 14, 2020. (Dkt. 1 at 11). He
reasserts the same claims raised on direct appeal: the evidence of identity was legally

insufficient to satisfy due process, and the weight of the evidence favored the defense (id.
at 7, 9 (“ground one”)); the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during
summation (id. at 8, 9) (“ground two”); the verdict acquitting him of second-degree
burglary was repugnant to the verdict convicting him of second-degree arson, and defense
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this error (id.) (“ground three”); and the
sentence was an abuse of discretion and violative of the Eighth Amendment (id.) (“ground

four”).
Respondent filed an answer (Dkt. 8) and memorandum of law (Dkt. 9) arguing that
Petitioner’s grounds for relief are meritless. Respondent manually filed the state court
records and trial transcripts. See Resp’t Exs. A, B, and C. Petitioner filed a reply. (Dkt.
10).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court “shall not . . . grant[ ]” an application for
a writ of habeas corpus “with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in
State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—(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.” Id. § 2254(d). In addition, a state
court’s factual findings are entitled to a presumption of correctness which only may be
rebutted by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id. § 2254(e)(1).

“By its terms § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim ‘adjudicated on the merits’ in
state court, subject only to the exceptions in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (2).” Harrington v. Richter,
562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011). Section 2254(d) articulates a “highly deferential standard for
evaluating state-court rulings, which demands that state-court decisions be given the
benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Insufficiency of the Evidence and Verdict Against the Weight of
the Evidence (Ground One)
Petitioner claims that the evidence of identity was legally insufficient to support the
conviction and that the verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence. (Dkt. | at
7,9).
The Appellate Division rejected the legal insufficiency claim on the merits.
Baldwin, 173 A.D.3d at 1748-49. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, as required by law, the Appellate Division found there was a “valid line of
reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion
reached by the jury.” Jd. at 1748-49 (quoting People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495
(1987)).
The Appellate Division also held that viewing the evidence in light of the elements
of the crime as charged to the jury, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence
with respect to Petitioner’s identity as the perpetrator. /d. at 1749. The Appellate Division
stated that even assuming “a different verdict would not have been unreasonable,” id., it
could not say “the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded.” Jd.
(quoting People v. Jackson, 162 A.D.3d 1567, 1567 (4th Dep’t 2018)).

-ll-

1. Legal Insufficiency of the Evidence
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a criminal
conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to

constitute the crime.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). As the Supreme Court has
interpreted Winship, evidence is legally sufficient to satisfy due process if, “after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). Where the trial record “supports

conflicting inferences,” the Court “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.” McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120, 133 (2010) (per
curiam) (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).
Where, as here, the state court has adjudicated a legal insufficiency claim on the

merits, the habeas court must apply a layer of deference in addition to that imposed by
Jackson itself. Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 651 (2012). The habeas 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.” Id. (quoting Cavazos v. Smith,
565 U.S. 1, 2 (2011) (per curiam)). Instead, the federal habeas court “may do so only if

the state court decision was ‘objectively unreasonable.’” Cavazos, 565 U.S. at 2 (quoting
Renico v. Lett, 599 U.S. 766, 773 (2010)). In finding that a rational jury could have found
the prosecution proved all the elements of second-degree arson beyond a reasonable doubt,
the Appellate Division did not rule in a manner contrary to, or unreasonably apply, Jackson.
A legal sufficiency analysis begins with identifying the substantive elements of the
underlying crime. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324 n.16. To secure a conviction under P.L.
§ 150.15, the prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally damaged a building

by starting a fire; and that either the defendant knew a non-participant in the crime actually
was present in the building or the circumstances were such as to render that person’s
presence in the building a reasonable possibility. See N.Y. Penal Law § 150.15. Of course,
the prosecution also must prove that the defendant was the person who committed the
charged offense. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 70.20 (“No conviction of an offense by

verdict is valid unless based upon trial evidence which is legally sufficient and which
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt every element of such offense and the [d]efendant’s
commission thereof.”).
Petitioner claims that the evidence of identity is insufficient because none of the
prosecution’s witnesses provided direct testimony placing him inside the building. While

“[i]dentity is always an essential element of a criminal prosecution, . . . ‘there is no rule of
law that requires identity to be established by an eyewitness.’” Gibson v. LaValley, No.
12-CV-6031 MAT, 2012 WL 5288776, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2012) (quoting United
States v. Kwong, 14 F.3d 189, 193 (2d Cir. 1994)). Instead, “[i]dentity can be inferred
through circumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Kwong, 14 F.3d at 193).

With regard to the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution, Petitioner argues that
his alleged statements to Belle and Johnson did not amount to conclusive admissions of
guilt. See Petitioner’s Appellate Brief at 10-11, Resp’t Ex. B. He also contends they were
not credible witnesses because they were drunk at the time of the alleged admissions and
they testified under material witness orders. See id. Petitioner questions the reliability of
Holloman’s testimony about his purported admission of guilt, noting that she moved in
with him after the fire. See id. at 12. According to Petitioner, this showed she did not

believe he was responsible for starting it. Id. During summation, defense counsel
presented extensive argument regarding the credibility of Holloman, Belle, and Johnson
and the appropriate weight to be given to, and the inferences to be drawn from, their
testimony. (T: 470-80, 483-84). The jury, by their guilty verdict on the second-degree
arson count, rejected those arguments.

Under Jackson, it is the “responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts
in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts
to ultimate facts.” 443 U.S. at 319. Such inquiries are beyond the purview of a habeas
court. See Wilson v. Capra, No. 20-4140-PR, 2023 WL 7179268, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 1,
2023) (“[N]one of [the] purported credibility issues identified by Wilson rendered the

testimony of either eyewitness unworthy of reliance by a rational jury. The defense
presented these issues to the jury, and there is no basis to disturb the jury’s credibility
assessment.”) (citing Gruttola v. Hammock, 639 F.2d 922, 928 (2d Cir. 1981) (“[T]he
jury’s decision was largely a matter of choosing whether to believe [the petitioner’s]
version of the events or to believe the version offered by the State. The jury chose to

believe the State’s witnesses, despite the inconsistencies in the evidence and the character
testimony. We cannot say that no rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt on all the evidence.”)).
As the Appellate Division noted on direct appeal, the prosecution adduced
“undisputed” circumstantial evidence establishing that Petitioner had both a motive and the
opportunity to commit the crime. 173 A.D.3d at 1748. Petitioner was “upset” with

Holloman because she “was ignoring him.” Id. On the night of the fire, Petitioner “banged
on the doors and window of [Holloman]’s apartment, asking to be let in” and “repeatedly
called [Holloman]’s cell phone, only to be told by her son that he could not let [Petitioner]
inside.” Id. Petitioner then told his former roommate, Blackmon, that he was “angry” at
Holloman because she would not allow him to come in. Id. Shortly after these events, a

fire was started at Holloman’s apartment. Id. The fire marshal testified that “the fire was
deliberately set.” Id. Holloman’s son, Terrence, testified that during the fire, he saw
Petitioner walking towards their house. Id. Petitioner “turned around and walked away
after noticing him.” Id. The Appellate Division further noted that the prosecution
presented direct proof of identity through the testimony of Holloman, Belle, and Johnson,

to whom Petitioner admitted having started the fire. Id.
On the basis of the facts adduced at trial, a rational jury could infer that it was
Petitioner who intentionally damaged the building located at 55 Barthel Street by starting
a fire in the first-story middle bedroom; and that when he started the fire, he had actual
knowledge that at least three non-participants in the crime—Holloman and her two sons—

were present in the building. “[T]he only question under Jackson is whether that finding
was so insupportable as to fall below the threshold of bare rationality.” Coleman v.
Johnson, 566 U.S. 650, 656 (2012). The Appellate Division answered this question in the
negative, “and that determination in turn is entitled to considerable deference under
AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).” Id. Because Petitioner has not shown that the Appellate
Division’s rejection of his legal insufficiency claim “was so lacking in justification that
there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any

possibility for fairminded disagreement,” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103, he is not entitled to
habeas relief.
2. Verdict Against the Weight of the Evidence
“A challenge to a verdict based on the weight of the evidence differs from one based
on the sufficiency of the evidence.” Echevarria-Perez v. Burge, 779 F. Supp. 2d 326, 332

(W.D.N.Y. 2011). A “weight of the evidence” claim is grounded in a statutory provision,
C.P.L. § 470.15(5), granting intermediate appellate courts in New York State broad factual
review power. See Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495. A legal insufficiency claim, on the other
hand, is based on due process principles. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 316.
The Second Circuit has recognized that “the argument that a verdict is against the

weight of the evidence states a claim under state law.” McKinnon v. Sup’t, Great Meadow
Corr. Facility, 422 F. App’x 69, 75 (2d Cir. 2011). As it is well settled that “federal habeas
corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law,” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990),
courts in this Circuit consistently have dismissed, as not cognizable, claims by habeas
petitioners asserting their verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. See McKinnon,

422 F. App’x at 75 (collecting cases). Because Petitioner’s challenge to the weight of the
evidence presents nothing more than an issue of state statutory law, it is dismissed as not
cognizable on federal habeas review.
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct (Ground Two)

Petitioner claims that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her summation
and substantially prejudiced his right to a fair trial. (Dkt. 1 at 8, 9). The Appellate Division
summarily denied this claim without discussion. See Baldwin, 173 A.D.3d at 1749
(concluding that the “remaining contentions . . . lack[ed] merit”).
The relevant standard on habeas review for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct
claims is “the narrow one of due process, and not the broad exercise of supervisory power.”

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 180 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416
U.S. 637, 642 (1974)). Improper conduct by the prosecutor warrants habeas relief “only if
[it] ‘“so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of
due process.”’” Jackson v. Conway, 763 F.3d 115, 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Darden,
477 U.S. at 180 (quoting Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 643)).

When making this determination, the habeas court “must consider the record as a
whole . . . because even a prosecutor’s inappropriate or erroneous comments or conduct
may not be sufficient to undermine the fairness of the proceedings when viewed in
context.” Id. (citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1985)). “[T]he reviewing
court must not only weigh the impact of the prosecutor’s remarks, but must also take into

account defense counsel’s opening salvo.” Young, 470 U.S. at 12.
Petitioner first challenges the following comment: “So when [defense counsel] says
this is a wholly circumstantial case, that is by no means the truth.” (T: 487). Petitioner
contends that this comment somehow denigrated the defense. To the contrary, it accurately
reflected defense counsel’s summation comments. (See T: 470, 482). Moreover, defense
counsel’s characterization of the prosecution’s proof as wholly circumstantial was
inaccurate. As the Appellate Division found, the prosecution presented direct evidence of
guilt via testimony from Holloman, Belle, and Johnson that Petitioner admitted to them he
started the fire. Here, the prosecutor’s comment was “invited” by defense counsel’s
summation and “did no more than respond substantially in order to ‘right the scale.’”
Young, 470 U.S. at 12. Therefore, it was not improper.
Petitioner next challenges the following comment as a misstatement of the evidence:
So it is then a reasonable and logical inference from that that he was the
person inside the house just a few minutes later, as heard by the footsteps
that were inside the house. By then, the footsteps that were coming from the
fire that was burning in the little boys’ bedroom.
(T: 488-89). Defense counsel objected to the remark about the footsteps, stating, “I don’t
believe there was any testimony that somebody heard footsteps. Maybe I’m mistaken, but
I think that was the people that didn’t testify.” (T: 489).* The trial court responded, “Well,
this is this attorney’s view of what was said. . . . I will tell the jury that they’ll be able to
ask for a read back of any portion.” (/d.).
Lastly, Petitioner asserts that the prosecutor again mischaracterized the evidence by
stating, “We know he had access to a lighter, to a way in which to start the fire.” (T: 492).
Defense counsel objected to the remark about the lighter, stating that it mischaracterized
the evidence as there had “been no testimony about a lighter.” (/d.). The trial court noted

8 The Court assumes defense counsel was referring to Randy and Jeanie, who
Holloman and Terrence testified were home on the night of the fire.
-18-

that “[t]his, again, is something for the jury to decide, and the testimony can be read back.”
(Id.).
The prosecution conceded on direct appeal that there was no testimony supporting

the argument that anyone heard footsteps inside the home prior to the fire being set. See
People’s Appellate Brief at 10, Resp’t Ex. B. However, the prosecutor did not concede
that the comment about the lighter was inaccurate. Instead, the prosecutor contended that
in light of Blackmon’s testimony that he knew Petitioner to be a smoker, and that they had
smoked cigarettes together that night, it was “not too great of an inferential leap for the

prosecutor to argue that” Petitioner “had access to a lighter.” Id. at 11. Fairly read, the
prosecutor’s comment did more than ask the jury to draw an inference from Blackmon’s
testimony. By beginning her remark with, “[w]e know,” the prosecutor strongly implied
there was undisputed proof that Petitioner had access to a lighter. However, there was no
testimony as to how Petitioner and Blackmon lit their cigarettes.

A defendant has the “right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented
to the jury,” Young, 470 U.S. at 18, and thus it “is improper for a prosecutor to
mischaracterize the evidence or refer in summation to facts not in evidence.” United States
v. Rosa, 17 F.3d 1531, 1548-49 (2d Cir. 1994). However, even under pre-AEDPA
standards, inappropriate prosecutorial comments without a showing of prejudice would not

justify reversal of a criminal conviction. See Young, 470 U.S. at 11-12. Because there has
been an adjudication on the merits, the “sole issue” is “whether it was objectively
unreasonable” for the Appellate Division “to find that the behavior did not ‘so infect[ ] the
trial with unfairness’ that it deprived [Petitioner] of due process.” Jackson, 763 F.3d at
148 (quotation marks omitted in original) (quoting Darden, 477 U.S. at 180). On the record
before it, the Court cannot reach such a conclusion.
When assessing the effect of an improper comment by the prosecutor on the fairness

of a trial, it is appropriate to look at the trial court’s jury instructions and any curative
measures it took. See Donnelly, 416 U.S. at 644. Here, after each objection, the trial court
told the jury that the prosecutor was simply stating her view of the evidence and that the
relevant testimony was available for a read-back at their request. Defense counsel did not
object any further, indicating that he viewed the instructions as sufficient. (T: 490, 492).

When the prosecutor resumed her argument, she did not repeat the objectionable
comments. In addition, the prosecutor reminded the jury that “[n]othing” that she or
defense counsel said was evidence. (T: 485).
Furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury on several occasions that nothing the
attorneys said—whether in their opening statements or closing arguments or any other

time—was evidence in the case and that the jury was the ultimate arbiter of the facts. (T:
239, 468-69, 503-04). As the jury is presumed to have followed the trial court’s
instructions, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211 (1987), any risk of prejudice was
mitigated. See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 (1987) (“The sequence of events in this
case—a single question, an immediate objection, and two curative instructions—clearly

indicates that the prosecutor’s improper question did not violate [the petitioner’s] due
process rights.”).
The Supreme Court has described its standard for evaluating prosecutorial
misconduct claims as “a very general one,” which “leav[es] courts ‘more leeway . . . in
reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.’” Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37, 48
(2012) (ellipsis in original) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)).
Given the generalized nature of the applicable standard, and the fact that Petitioner’s

prosecutorial misconduct claim involved two minor aberrations in an otherwise fair
proceeding, the Court cannot find that the Appellate Division’s rejection of this claim was
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court
precedent. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.
C. Repugnancy of the Verdicts (Ground Three)

Petitioner claims that the verdicts were repugnant, and that defense counsel was
ineffective in failing to object in a timely manner. The Appellate Division found that the
repugnancy claim was unpreserved due to defense counsel’s failure to object before the
jury was discharged. Baldwin, 173 A.D.3d at 1749. The Appellate Division alternatively
held that “because it was not legally impossible for the jury to convict [Petitioner] of arson

in the second degree and acquit him of burglary in the first [sic] degree, as charged by the
court, the verdict with respect to those counts is not repugnant.” Id. The Appellate
Division explained that although the prosecution’s theory “at trial was that [he] entered the
victim’s apartment to set the fire, the [trial] court’s charge with respect to the arson count
did not require the jury to make any such finding.” Id. The Appellate Division summarily

dismissed the ineffectiveness claim as among Petitioner’s remaining contentions that
lacked merit. Id.
1. Repugnant Verdicts
As the Supreme Court has noted, “inconsistency in a verdict is not a sufficient
reason for setting it aside.” Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 345 (1981) (per curiam).

Claims based on repugnant or inconsistent verdicts do not set forth a constitutional question
and, accordingly, are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See id. at 344 (reversing
grant of habeas corpus; stating that even assuming the lower court “correctly determined
that the verdicts are facially inconsistent, . . . there is no federal requirement that a state
trial judge explain his reasons for acquitting a defendant in a state criminal trial” because

“even if the acquittal rests on an improper ground, that error would not create a
constitutional defect in a guilty verdict that is supported by sufficient evidence and is the
product of a fair trial”); Smith v. Herbert, 275 F. Supp. 2d 361, 371 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (“A
purported inconsistency in a state court verdict is generally not a basis on which to grant
habeas corpus relief.”) (citing Harris, 454 U.S. at 344-45; United States v. Powell, 469

U.S. 57, 69 (1984) (holding that while inconsistency in verdicts was “undisputed,” there
was “no reason to vacate [the defendant]’s conviction merely because the verdicts cannot
be rationally reconciled”)). Petitioner’s claim based on the alleged repugnancy between
the arson conviction and the burglary acquittal does not state a federal constitutional claim
and is dismissed as not cognizable.

2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Petitioner contends that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to
preserve, by timely objection, the argument that the verdicts were repugnant. (Dkt. 1 at 8,
9). The Appellate Division rejected this claim as among Petitioner’s remaining contentions
that were without merit. Baldwin, 173 A.D.3d at 1749.
To fulfill the two-part test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), a

defendant must show that “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning
as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 687. “Second,
the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. This
“requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair
trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id. “It is not enough for the defendant to show that

the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. at 693.
The trial court considered and rejected the repugnant verdicts claim on the merits
when it was raised in the 330 motion. The Appellate Division then addressed the merits of
the repugnant verdict claim notwithstanding the lack of preservation. Accordingly,
Petitioner cannot show that defense counsel’s failure to preserve the repugnant verdicts

claim had any effect on the outcome of his trial or appeal. See, e.g., Bierenbaum v.
Graham, 607 F.3d 36, 57 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that, where the Appellate Division
reviewed the legal insufficiency claim despite it being unpreserved, the petitioner could
not claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve the issue for appeal); Walker
v. Bennett, 262 F. Supp. 2d 25, 40 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (holding that the petitioner was

“unable to establish prejudice based on counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor's
remarks” because “[d]espite counsel's failure to object at trial, the Appellate Division
reviewed the prosecutorial misconduct claim and found that the prosecutor’s summation
constituted fair response to the defense summation”).
Petitioner’s failure to meet both prongs of the Strickland standard is fatal to his
ineffectiveness claim. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (“[T]here is no reason for a court
deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even

to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing
on one.”). Because the Appellate Division’s rejection of the ineffectiveness claim was
neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Strickland, habeas relief is
unwarranted.
D. Abuse of Sentencing Discretion and Eighth Amendment Violation
(Ground Four)
Petitioner complains that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an unduly
harsh and severe sentence. (Dkt. 1 at 8, 9). Petitioner also asserts his sentence violated the
Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. (Id.). The

Appellate Division summarily rejected these claims without comment. Baldwin, 173
A.D.3d at 1749.
1. Abuse of Sentencing Discretion
“A petitioner’s assertion that a sentencing judge abused his discretion in sentencing
is generally not a federal claim subject to review by a habeas court.” Echevarria-Perez,

779 F. Supp. 2d at 337-38 (citing Fielding v. LeFevre, 548 F.2d 1102, 1109 (2d Cir. 1977)
(holding that the petitioner did not raise a cognizable federal claim by seeking to prove that
the state court abused its sentencing discretion in disregarding his psychiatric reports)).
“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range
prescribed by state law.” White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
Petitioner was convicted of second-degree arson (P.L. § 150.15), which is
considered a class B violent felony offense. N.Y. Penal Law § 70.02(1)(a). The sentence
imposed for a class B violent felony offense must be a determinate sentence and must

include a period of post-release supervision in accordance with P.L. § 70.45. Id.
§ 70.00(6). Subject to exceptions not relevant here, the sentence imposed upon a person
convicted of a class B violent felony offense must be a determinate sentence of
imprisonment and must accord with P.L. § 70.02(3). Id. § 70.02(2)(a). Under P.L.
§ 70.02(3), the determinate sentence for a class B violent felony offense must be at least

five years and must not exceed 25 years. Id. § 70.02(3)(a). The period of post-release
supervision for a determinate sentence imposed pursuant to P.L. § 70.02(e) for a class B
violent felony offense must not be less than two and one-half years nor more than five
years. Id. § 70.45(2)(f).
Thus, “[a]lthough [Petitioner]’s sentence was the maximum permitted by statute, it

did not exceed what was permissible under New York’s sentencing scheme.” Echevarria-
Perez, 779 F. Supp. 2d at 338. Accordingly, the claim that the trial court abused its
discretion by imposing the statutory maximum sentence fails to present a federal
constitutional issue cognizable on habeas review and is dismissed.
2. Violation of the Eighth Amendment

The Supreme Court has articulated a principle of “gross disproportionality” for
measuring whether a prisoner’s sentence violates the Eighth Amendment proscription
against cruel and unusual punishment. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991)
(collecting cases); see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003) (stating that the
only “clearly established” legal principal in the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment
jurisprudence is that “[a] gross disproportionality principle is applicable to sentences for
terms of years”). “The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between

crime and sentence.” Id. at 1001. “Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are
‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” Id. (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 263, 288
(1983)). Even “[s]evere, mandatory penalties” are tolerated under the Supreme Court’s
Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Id. at 994. Although they “may be cruel, . . . they are
not unusual in the constitutional sense, having been employed in various forms throughout

[the] Nation’s history.” Id. at 994-95.
When pronouncing Petitioner’s sentence, the trial court explained its rationale for
imposing the statutory maximum:
It is important to note that there were five people in the house when the fire
was started. Five people could have died. I find no mitigating circumstances
to give you leniency.

(S: 7). Petitioner has not established that the trial court unreasonably determined the facts
in light of the evidence presented at trial, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Nor has he overcome
the presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court’s factual findings, id.
§ 2254(e)(1), concerning the circumstances surrounding the crime of conviction.
On direct appeal, Petitioner cited the following mitigating factors: he was 55 years-
old at the time of sentencing; no one was injured in the fire; he had been employed as a cab
driver for 30 years; he had only one prior felony conviction from 1992; and although he
had some prior misdemeanor convictions, he was not a career criminal. However, in non-
capital cases, the Eighth Amendment does not require consideration of mitigating
circumstances. See Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 995. This Court has no difficulty concluding
that Petitioner’s case is not the type of “exceedingly rare” and “extreme” case, Lockyer,
538 U.S. at 73 (quoting Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1001 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and
concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted in original)), in
which the Supreme Court contemplated intervention by a federal habeas court in a state
sentencing decision. Because the Appellate Division did not unreasonably apply, or rule
in a manner contrary to, the Supreme Court’s clearly established Eighth Amendment
precedent, habeas relief is unwarranted on this claim.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the petition (Dkt. 1) is denied. The Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) because Petitioner has failed to
make “‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” id. § 2253(c)(2). The
Clerk of Court is directed to update the caption to replace Joseph Noeth, the currently
named Respondent, with Julie Wolcott. The Clerk of Court is further directed to close this
case.
SO ORDERED.
ELIZABEVH A. WOERQRD_/ ©
udge
United States District Court
Dated: March 11, 2024
Rochester, New York

-27-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10367021. Public record. Not legal advice.