United States District Court, N.D. New York
GARY ALFORD. 08-A-0339, Petitioner, Pro Se, Romulus, New York, of Counsel.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Respondent
HOMAS B. LITSKY, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General New York, New York.
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Gary Alford ("Petitioner") filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on November 7, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) By Report-Recommendation dated September 17, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 16.) On October 30, 2013, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and the Petition is denied and dismissed in its entirety.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual background of Petitioner's 2008 conviction for two counts of Predatory Sexual Assault Against a Child, one count of First Degree Criminal Sexual Act, one count of First Degree Sexual Abuse, and one count of first degree Course of Sexual Conduct Against a Child. Rather, the Court will refer the reader to the relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation, which accurately recite that factual background. ( See generally Dkt. No. 16.)
A. Petitioner's Claims
On November 7, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, the Petition asserts the following three grounds for relief: (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the state statutes governing the indictment against him, and failing to preserve the issues for effective appellate review; (2) that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to address the aforementioned omission and the overall ineffective assistance of Petitioner's trial counsel; and (3) that the trial court violated his right to present a defense and to confront witnesses against him (specifically, to present Dr. Ann Leung as an expert trial witness for the defense) ( Id. at Parts 12.A., 12.B., and 12.C.)
B. Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation
On September 17, 2013 Magistrate Judge Baxter issued his Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 16.) Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baxter made the following findings: (1) a finding that Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is procedurally barred under the circumstances; (2) a finding that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his appellate counsel was ineffective, largely because his appellate counsel succeeded in having two counts of the indictment dismissed, and he filed an appeal to have the remaining counts run concurrently, which significantly decreased Petitioner's sentence (so as to render irrelevant Petitioner's claim that the counts were repetitive); and (3) a finding that the trial court, in an evidentiary hearing, correctly determined that Dr. Leung's testimony would not have created a "reasonable doubt" which did not otherwise exist, because such evidence already existed in testimony before the trial court, and the appellate court concurred that additional testimony by Dr. Leung would have been "merely cumulative [sic] information that the jury had already heard." ( Id. at Part III.) Because this Decision and Order is intended primarily for the review of the parties, the Court will not recite the findings made by Magistrate Judge Baxter, and the reasons for those findings, in more detail, but will merely refer the reader to that Report-Recommendation in its entirety.
C. Petitioner's Objection to the Report-Recommendation
On October 30, 2013, Petitioner filed his Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 19.) Generally, in his Objection, Petitioner asserts the following four arguments: (1) an argument that Magistrate Judge Baxter erred through his "wholesale adoption" of Respondent's factual assertions and legal arguments; (2) an argument that Magistrate Judge Baxter erred by failing to properly review Petitioner's legal arguments and apply the legal standard governing procedural defaults; (3) an argument that Magistrate Judge Baxter erred by misapplying the law governing Petitioner's argument that, although he received a reduced sentence, his trial counsel failed to raise and preserve statutory law, and appellate counsel failed to raise this failure on appeal, which would have led to a "full reversal" and the dismissal of the indictment as "legally insufficient"; and (4) an argument that Magistrate Judge Baxter erred by ...