Opinion
No. 78 Civil 5216.
March 30, 1979.
Leon Kennedy, pro se.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, New York City, for respondent; Marion Buchbinder, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel.
OPINION
Petitioner, presently confined at the Eastern New York Correctional Facility, was convicted of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree on November 5, 1975 following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed his conviction by order dated February 24, 1977 and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied on April 22, 1977. He now seeks to void his conviction under a federal writ of habeas corpus for alleged violations of various constitutional rights.
At the threshold, the State contends and petitioner concedes that two of his three claims were not presented to the state courts in a constitutional context. Petitioner's present due process challenge to the admission of the police officers' testimony as to the victim's identification of his assailants was raised in the state courts in statutory terms — whether the testimony was admitted in violation of section 60.25 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law ("C.P.L."). Similarly, his Eighth Amendment challenge here to the length of the sentence imposed was presented to the Appellate Division in terms of that court's discretionary power under section 470.15 of the C.P.L. to modify a sentence "in the interest of justice."
As to the above two claims, the petition must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. This Court has stated in the past that the "exhaustion of state remedies requirement is a doctrine of substance under our system of federalism, reflecting a policy of federal-state comity. Its rationale is that the state courts in the first instance are entitled to a fair opportunity to vacate a conviction resting upon alleged constitutional violations since they are equally bound with the federal courts to protect citizens' constitutional rights." Clearly the state courts were never provided the "fair opportunity" to consider the constitutional claims now posed.
United States ex rel. Aloi v. Arnold, 413 F. Supp. 1384, 1386 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); accord, Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); Wilson v. Fogg, 571 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1978); United States ex rel. Santiago v. Follette, 298 F. Supp. 973 (S.D.N.Y. 1969); United States ex rel. Gallo v. Follette, 270 F. Supp. 507 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
Petitioner's further contention that raising these claims in the state courts at this point would be futile in light of § 440.10 of the C.P.L. must also be rejected. As the Second Circuit recently stated: "Whether New York entertains collateral relief at this point is a matter of New York law to be decided by New York courts and not by federal court predictions of what stances those courts will take." Wilson v. Fogg, 571 F.2d 91, 95 (1978).
Petitioner raises the additional claim that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence. This claim "`is essentially a question of state law and does not rise to federal constitutional dimensions,' . . . absent a record so totally devoid of evidentiary support that a due process issue is raised." Suffice it to say that was not the case here. According to the testimony of the police officers responding to the burglary-in-progress call, they first encountered petitioner in the hallway outside the victim's ransacked apartment helping a co-defendant, who was standing in the threshold of the apartment, remove a console stereo. After attempting to flee, he was arrested and searched; several items found in his possession were later identified as belonging to the victim. Although the victim was unable to identify petitioner, the testimony at trial indicated that the looting of the victim's apartment continued for approximately an hour, during which time he was bound hand and foot in the bathroom with a plastic bag tied over his head and struck with a hammer. The credibility of petitioner's explanation at trial of his presence in the building and of his claim that he was being framed for "trying to be so damn smart" was for the jury to determine.
Mapp v. Warden, 531 F.2d 1167, 1173-74 n. 8 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 982, 97 S.Ct. 498, 50 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976), quoting in part United States ex rel. Terry v. Henderson, 462 F.2d 1125, 1131 (2d Cir. 1972).
A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree under N Y Penal Law § 160.15 (McKinney 1975) "when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (1) Causes serious physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime." Burglary in the first degree, id. § 140.30, is established on proof that a person "knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully in a dwelling at night with intent to commit a crime therein, and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: 2. Cause[d] physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime."
Accessorial liability attaches to one who "acting with the mental culpability required for the commission [of the offense], solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids" another person to engage in conduct which constitutes the offense. Id. § 20.00.
The jury verdict on this record was not "devoid of evidentiary support." There was substantial circumstantial evidence of petitioner's participation in the crimes alleged; such evidence if believed is of no less value than direct evidence. The jury was entitled to draw an inference of guilt from petitioner's possession of the fruits of the crime recently after its commission if it concluded that the evidence did not provide a satisfactory explanation of such possession. And the testimony concerning petitioner's flight from the arresting officers provided a legitimate ground from which the jury could infer consciousness of guilt.
Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-40, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954); United States v. Glasser, 443 F.2d 994, 1006-07 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 854, 92 S.Ct. 96, 30 L.Ed.2d 95 (1971); United States v. Bowles, 428 F.2d 592, 597 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 928, 91 S.Ct. 193, 27 L.Ed.2d 188 (1970); cf. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 508 n. 17, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957).
Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U.S. 520, 524-25, 33 S.Ct. 146, 57 L.Ed. 330 (1913); Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 619, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896); United States v. Coppola, 424 F.2d 991, 993 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 2246, 26 L.Ed.2d 795 (1970); United States v. De Sisto, 329 F.2d 929, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 979, 84 S.Ct. 1885, 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964).
United States v. Brozyna, 571 F.2d 742, 747 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Ayala, 307 F.2d 574 (2d Cir. 1962); United States v. Heitner, 149 F.2d 105, 107 (2d Cir.) (L. Hand), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 727, 66 S.Ct. 33, 90 L.Ed. 432 (1945).
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied for failure to exhaust state remedies as to the first and third claims challenging the admission of testimony and the length of the sentence. As to the second claim concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, the petition is denied on the merits. tion of widely-used accounting terms and principles every time it disseminates a financial statement employing such terms and principles to the investing public. As Judge Brieant stated in Freedman v. Barrow, 427 F. Supp. 1129, 1140 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), in the context of a challenge to the method in which various accounting principles were applied in a proxy statement:
Perhaps in a different world a detailed description of hundreds of pages setting forth all the accounting ramifications . . . would be desirable for whatever edification the average shareholder could derive. Whatever the relative merits of such a costly work, the law does not require it. Such in-depth treatment would take more than a few pages, and few but accountants, lawyers and financial analysts could comprehend it. It would be necessary to precede the discussion of the accounting treatment with a full explanation to the stockholders of such accounting terms as capital account, earned surplus, gross and net profit, net worth, cash flow and others. The intricacies of income tax law and the accrual method of accounting must be understood, all merely as prerequisites to carrying the shareholder intelligently through . . . the various entries. . ..
The securities laws require merely that matters disclosed should neither be misleading nor omit facts necessary to make disclosed statements not misleading to a reasonable investor. Defendant has met that requirement in the instant case.
Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. In view of this disposition, plaintiff's motion for class action certification is denied as moot.
Settle judgment on notice.