House v. Miller

9 Citing cases

  1. Wynn v. Lee

    9:19-CV-209 (BKS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    . Without any evidence of relevant documents or what other evidence further investigation would have uncovered, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his attorney performed below the professional standard.โ€); House v. Miller, No. 02-CV-5379, 2003 WL 23198788, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003) (โ€œ[The petitioner also merely speculates that a โ€˜pretrial investigation' of the โ€˜blood-stained' knife would have uncovered evidence that โ€˜could have been used to disprove that the knife admitted into evidence' was not โ€˜the actual weapon involved in the alleged assault[.]' . . .

  2. Carter v. Fields

    19-CV-5364 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    "[I]n order to establish an unconscionable breakdown in the process, a petitioner must show that the state courts failed to conduct a reasoned method of inquiry into relevant questions of fact and law." House v. Miller, No. 02-CV-5379 (JBW), 2003 WL 23198788, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).

  3. Marino v. Superintendent, Franklin Corr. Facility

    17-CV-1650 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019)   Cited 8 times

    "[I]in order to establish an unconscionable breakdown in the process, a petitioner must show that the state courts failed to conduct a reasoned method of inquiry into relevant questions of fact and law." House v. Miller, No. 02-CV-5379, 2003 WL 23198788, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003) (quotations omitted).

  4. Bonilla v. Lee

    35 F. Supp. 3d 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 39 times
    Observing that New York law permits defendants to respond only to present or imminentโ€”and not pastโ€”uses of deadly force

    See Beck, 447 U.S. at 638 n. 14, 100 S.Ct. 2382 ; see also Brito, 2011 WL 1542516, at *7 n. 1 ; Till v. Miller, 1998 WL 397848, at *4 n. 4. For this reason, the petitioner's claim that the trial court erroneously failed to give a lesser-included offense instruction does not state a claim for the violation of his due process rights under the standard articulated in Cupp and Davis.See Davis, 270 F.3d at 123 (noting that an allegation of an erroneous jury instruction only raises a cognizable issue of federal law for habeas review when โ€œthe ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due processโ€ (quoting Cupp, 414 U.S. at 147, 94 S.Ct. 396 ); see also House v. Miller, No. 02cv5379, 2003 WL 23198788, at *15โ€“16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003) (addressing under the Cupp standard a habeas claim that the state trial court failed to give a lesser-included offense charge). There is no reasonable view of the evidence in this case that would have supported a finding that the petitioner committed first-degree manslaughter rather than second-degree murder.

  5. Bien v. Smith

    546 F. Supp. 2d 26 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)   Cited 22 times
    Finding petitioner's claim not cognizable where petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to charge manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser-included offense of murder in the second degree

    Further, even if this issue was a proper subject for habeas review, the Court finds that the trial court's failure to submit the lesser-included offense to the jury was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or contrary to any New York rule of law that is consistent with any federal constitutional standard. See Campaneria v. Reid, 891 F.2d 1014, 1022 โ€” 23 (2d Cir. 1989) (stating that the Second Circuit has yet to decide whether due process requires a charge of lesser-included offenses in non-capital cases, but finding that it was not required to reach that question because no reasonable view of the evidence would entitle the defendant to an instruction on second-degree manslaughter); Maldonado, 2007 WL 188684, at *6 (citing House v. Miller, No. 02CV5379, 2003 WL 23198788, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003)); Singleton, 2006 WL 73734, at *10 (citing 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(d)). N.Y. Penal Law ยง 125.20 reads, in part:

  6. BIEN v. SMITH

    05CV6118 (ADS) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2007)

    Further, even if this issue was a proper subject for habeas review, the Court finds that the trial court's failure to submit the lesser-included offense to the jury was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or contrary to any New York rule of law that is consistent with any federal constitutional standard. See Campaneria v. Reid, 891 F.2d 1014, 1022-23 (2d Cir. 1989) (stating that the Second Circuit has yet to decide whether due process requires a charge of lesser-included offenses in non-capital cases, but finding that it was not required to reach that question because no reasonable view of the evidence would entitle the defendant to an instruction on second-degree manslaughter); Maldonado, 2007 WL 188684, at *6 (citing House v. Miller, No. 02CV5379, 2003 WL 23198788, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003)); Singleton, 2006 WL 73734, at *10 (citing 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(d)). N.Y. Penal Law ยง 125.20 reads, in part:

  7. Maldonado v. West

    1:05-cv-3132-ENV (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2007)

    In any event, the Court would not find that the Second Department's decision on this point was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of New York law; a rule of law which is "consistent with any federal constitutional standard that might arguably apply." House v. Miller, No. 02-cv-5379, 2003 WL 23198788, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003); Peakes, 2004 WL 1366056, at *13 n. 21. "Under New York law the trial court need only submit a lesser included offense when: (1) it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser, and (2) there exists a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant did in fact commit the lesser, but not the greater offense."House, 2003 WL 23198788, at *16 (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law ยง 300.

  8. Brown v. Bradshaw

    Case No: 4:04CV1727 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 3, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Generally, a claim of inconsistent verdicts is not reviewable in habeas corpus. House v. Miller, 2003 WL 23198788 * 16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003). "Consistency in the verdict is not necessary."

  9. Peakes v. Spitzer

    04 Civ. 1342 (RMB) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2004)   Cited 28 times
    Collecting habeas cases showing the uniform rejection of lesser included offense claims by district courts in the Second Circuit

    See, e.g., Smith v. Barkley, No. 99-CV-0257, 2004 WL 437470 at *5-6 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2004); Lindsey v. Fischer, 02 Civ. 1668, 2004 WL 112884 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2004) (Because the Supreme Court has left the issue open and the Second Circuit refrained from deciding the issue in Jones v. Hoffman based on Teague, therefore "Petitioner's claim is not cognizable under current habeas corpus law," i.e., was not an unreasonable application of Beck v. Alabama.); Fleurant v. Duncan, No. 00-CV-7647, 2003 WL 22670920 at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2003);Smith v. Walsh, 02 Civ. 5755, 2003 WL 21649485 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2003); House v. Miller, No. 02-CV-5379, 2003 WL 23198788 at *15-16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2003) (Weinstein, D.J.) (decision not to charge lesser included offense was not "an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, or even erroneous under New York state law"); Davis v. Herbert, No. 02-CV-04908, 2003 WL 23185747 at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2003) (Weinstein, D.J.) ("There is no Supreme Court authority requiring state courts to charge lesser included offenses in anything other than a death penalty case."); Greene v. Fisher, No. 02-CV-3854, 2003 WL 22956997 at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2003) (Weinstein, D.J.) ("The defendant's claim regarding the refusal of the court to charge the [lesser included offense] cannot furnish the basis for habeas relief because the Supreme Court of the United States has never held in a non-capital case, an accused is constitutionally entitled to the submission of any lesser included offenses."); Collins v. Greiner, No. 02-CV-4727, 2003 WL 22953067 at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2003) (Weinstein, D.J.); Willis v. Duncan, No. 00-CV-4171, 2003 WL 21845664