Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
A witnesses observed an assailant known only by the nickname 'Florida' shoot and kill two men. Five days later, Rochester police officers conducted an unrelated 'buy and bust' operation, in which P sold a $20 bag of crack cocaine to a police informant, with an undercover officer present. The drug deal took place through the window of a house at 46 Costar Street, two miles from the site of the homicides. Four uniformed police officers arrived without a warrant for P's arrest. They knocked at the front door of the house, which was answered by P's ten-year-old son. The child informed them that his father was upstairs, sleeping. After four or five attempts to coax him downstairs, the uniformed officers entered the house and took P into custody. The undercover officer then identified P as the person he had observed selling cocaine earlier, and P was placed under arrest. A passing neighbor notice P in the police car and asked an officer what was happening with 'Florida.' The arresting officers contacted investigators working on the Bloomingdale Street homicides. Police presented a photo array including P's photo to four different witnesses to the homicides. All four identified P as the shooter. After being read Miranda warnings, P declined an attorney, and the police questioned him about the homicides. P confessed, and the police prepared a written statement which he reviewed and signed after midnight, on the same night as his arrest. He was subsequently indicted, tried, and convicted on homicide charges. P moved to suppress the confession and photo identifications on the ground that his warrantless home arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. P claimed that he had been living at 46 Costar Street for at least two months. The trial court held that P did not have standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim since he was merely a 'casual visitor' with a 'transient presence' at 46 Costar and thus had no 'legitimate expectation of privacy' there. P testified that he shot the two individuals in self-defense. The four eyewitnesses testified, identifying P as the gunman. His confession was admitted during the state's rebuttal case. P was convicted on two counts of murder in the second degree, and the court sentenced him to consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life. On direct appeal, P's attorney did not challenge the adverse suppression ruling. The New York Court of Appeals denied P leave to appeal. P then filed an application for a writ of coram nobis seeking to vacate his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise several issues, including the trial court's suppression ruling. The Appellate Division summarily denied the application. P then filed a habeas corpus petition asserting the same claim as his coram nobis petition, which the district court denied. A certificate of appealability was granted and limited to the issue of whether failure to raise the suppression issue on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co