Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mark Decicco v. Robert E. Ercole

November 3, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge


I. Introduction

Plaintiff pro se Mark De Cicco*fn1 brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his current confinement in state custody is in violation of his federal constitutional rights. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) De Cicco bases his habeas petition on the following grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (3) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (4) the sentence was excessive; and (5) the prosecutor violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 32 at 1-2.) In a Report-Recommendation (R&R) dated December 22, 2010, Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece recommended that De Cicco's habeas petition be denied.*fn2 (Dkt. No. 32.) Pending are De Cicco's objections to that R&R.*fn3 (Dkt. No. 35.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.

II. Background

In 2004, De Cicco was found guilty of Sodomy in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.50(2)), Sodomy in the Third Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.40(2)) and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10(1)) pursuant to a jury trial. (Dkt. No. 32 at 2.) On March 1, 2007, the New York State Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department denied De Cicco's appeal and on May 4, 2007, his application for leave to appeal was denied. People v. DeCicco, 38 A.D.3d 937 (3d Dep't. 2007) lv. denied, 8 N.Y.3d 983 (2007).

III. Standard of Review

Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole,No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.

IV. Discussion

De Cicco's objections are limited to Judge Treece's recommendation that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel underlying his habeas petition be denied.*fn4 (See Dkt. No. 35.) In his objections, De Cicco primarily reiterates the same factual and legal assertions contained in his initial claim. (Dkt. No. 35.) Treating these factual rehashings as specific objections, the court reviews them de novo. The remainder of Judge Treece's recommendations are reviewed for clear error. Upon a combined review, the court adopts Judge Treece's R&R in its entirety.

De Cicco first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a subpoena duces tecum to obtain a check purportedly written to De Cicco by the victim's father. (Dkt. No. 35.) De Cicco alleges that the check was remuneration for the burglarization of his home by the victim, and that it shows motive on the part of the victim to fabricate charges against De Cicco. (Id.) Unlike the ineffective assistance claim discussed below, De Cicco failed to raise the instant allegation before the state courts. (Dkt. No. 32 at 11.)

For a state prisoner to bring a valid habeas petition, he must first show that he has "exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process; or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner." Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 89 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)). Where the petitioner "failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims procedurally barred . . . there is a procedural default for purposes of federal habeas" review. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n.1 (1991); see also Sweet v. Bennett, 353 F.3d 135, 139 (2d Cir. 2003).

In New York, a state court must "deny a motion to vacate a judgment based on a constitutional violation where the defendant unjustifiably failed to argue the constitutional violation on direct appeal despite a sufficient record." Id. (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(2)(c)). Petitioners are entitled to "one (and only one) appeal to the Appellate Division and one request for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals." Aparicio, 269 F.3d at 91 (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 450.10(1); N.Y. Ct. R. § 500.10(a)).

While De Cicco raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal before the Third Department, he made no mention of his trial counsel's failure to obtain a check purportedly written to him by the victim's father. (Dkt. No. 32 at 11.) This issue could have been raised by De Cicco on direct appeal, however, as evidenced by his explicit reference to the check on the trial record. (Dkt. No. 32 at 12.)

Because De Cicco could not now file a second appeal with the Third Department, his ineffective assistance claim based on his trial counsel's failure to obtain the check is deemed procedurally barred. A procedurally barred habeas claim cannot be heard by a federal reviewing court "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice." Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750. De Cicco offers no facts or arguments in support of a finding of cause for the default or actual prejudice. Furthermore, he has not established the threat of a fundamental miscarriage of justice should the court not adjudicate his habeas petition. Accordingly, the court adopts the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.