Opinion
05 Civ. 5582 (PAC)(AJP).
July 10, 2006
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Seven years ago on April 15, 1999, Petitioner shot and killed in broad daylight a young woman on her way to work. Petitioner intended to rob his victim, but when the woman resisted, Petitioner pulled out a gun and shot her in the chest at point blank range. Petitioner was convicted based on eye-witness testimony, a videotape of Petitioner leaving the scene, and several statements he made to the police.
Petitioner had a pre-trial hearing to determine whether one of his statements was made while he was in custody; and whether six subsequent post-Miranda statements were voluntary. None of the statements were suppressed and they were used in evidence at trial. Petitioner was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second and Third Degrees. He was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life imprisonment.
Petitioner raises three issues in:
1. His initial four-word un-Mirandized statement and his six subsequent Mirandized statements to the police and an Assistant District Attorney, in which he confessed to shooting the woman, were coerced and should have been suppressed;
The police requested Petitioner to go to the local precinct where he was asked about a number of unrelated robberies in the neighborhood. While in the precinct, he was offered food, allowed to sleep, and was not placed under any restraint. At the end of one of the sessions, he was shown a picture of the decedent. Petitioner stated "It was a mistake." He was immediately arrested, and given his Miranda warnings. Thereafter, he made several more incriminating statements.
2. The trial judge denied him the right to present a defense at trial, when she precluded the testimony of Petitioner's brother as irrelevant; and
3. Petitioner's sentence of 25 years to life for first degree murder was excessive.
The Court has reviewed the briefs filed, the record of the proceeding below, as well as United States Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's comprehensive 98-page Opinion, dated May 1, 2006, in which he extensively reviews and thoroughly analyzes each of Petitioner's claims. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation as its opinion, and accordingly denies the writ of habeas corpus.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter an Order closing the case.
Magistrate Judge Peck allowed the parties ten days in which to submit objections, and cautioned the parties that failure to file objections would result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. No objections were received. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1415(a)(3), any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Further, Petitioner has