09-2280-pr

Be rryv. Er co le UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY ORD ER RULI NGS BY S UM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HA VE PRE CEDENT I AL EF FE CT. CI TATI ON TO A S U M M A R Y O R D E R F IL E D O N O R A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , IS P E R M IT T E D A N D IS G O V E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 A N D T H IS C O U R T ’S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH T HI S COU RT, A P AR T Y M US T CI T E E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L AP P E ND I X OR AN E L E CT RON I C D AT AB AS E ( W I T H T HE NOT AT I ON “ S UM M A R Y OR D E R ” ) . A P A RT Y C I T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RES ENTE D BY COUNSE L. At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, hel d at the Danie l P atr ick

Mo yn ihan C ourth ou se, 50 0 P ear l S tre et, in t he Ci ty o f N ewYo rk, on

the 30 day

th of August, two thousand ten. Pr ese nt: ROBERT A. KATZ MANN,

PETER W . HALL, DENNYCHIN,

Ci rcu it J ud ges .

________________________________________________ JAMES BERR

Y, Petitione r-Appellant , v. No. 09-2280-pr ROBERT E. ERCO LE,

Resp on de nt-

Ap pe lle e .

________________________________________________ Fo r P eti tio ne r-App ell ant: B RI AN S HEPP ARD , New Hyde Park, NY Fo r R esp on de nt- Ap pe lle e: A LL EN J. V I CKEY , As sis tant D istric t A tto rne y (K are n Schlossberg, Assi stant District Att orney, on thebr ief ), for Cyrus R. Vanc e, Jr. , D istric t A tto rne y, Ne w Y ork County, New York, NY2

Ap pe al f rom a d en ial of

a p eti tio n f

or writ of ha be as c orp us in t

he Un ite d S tat es D istric t Court for the Southern Dis trictof New York (Cote, J. ) entere d May 12, 2009. ON CO NS ID ER

AT IONWHE RE OF , it is her eby ORDERED , ADJUDGED , and DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e an d h ere byis AFFIRMED
. Pe tit ion er- Ap pe lla

nt J am es B err

y w as se nte nc ed

on June 11 , 2 00 1 f

oll ow inga st ate co urt jur y tr ial to an a gg reg ate ter m of 35 ye ars ’ im

pri so nm ent. O n S ep tem

be r 11 , 2 00 6, pe tit ion er fi led pro s e for a writ of habeas corpus arguing, inter a lia , th at h e su ff ere d in ef fe cti ve ass ist an ce of counsel with respe ct to defense at torney Allan Bre nner’s advi ce (or al leged lack t hereof) relati ng to petit ioner’s de cision to r eject a pl ea offer before his tri al. The stat e court deni ed the
m oti on , s tat ingthat th e “d ef en dant’ s cl aim

of ine ff ect ive ass ist an ce o f c ouns el i s . . . fa ctu all y
an d le ga llyun su

pp ort ed .” J. A. 57 . A ft er f ili ngin f ed era l co urt , th e p eti tio n w as r ef err ed to United States Magistr ate Judge Theodore Katz who issued a Reportand Recomm endation on De cem be r 19 , 2 00 8 re co mm en din g th at the pe tit ion be grante d a s to tri al c ouns el’ s al leg ed ine ff ect ive ne ss at th e ti m e B err y re jec ted the ple a o ff

er. On May 12 , 2 00 9, the dis tri ct c ourt issued an Opinion a nd Order decli ning to adopt Judge Katz’s rec omm endation and denyi ng the pe tit ion . T his ap pe al f

oll ow ed . W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ f am ili ari ty w iththe rel ev ant ad dit ion al facts and procedur al history of the case. Though Judge Katz’s anal ysis was admirably thorough, a fter review of the re cord and the dis tri ct c ourt’ s exten siv e o pin ion be low , w e ar e satis fi ed

that th e p eti tio n m

us t be rej ect ed be cau se p eti tio ne r ha s f

ail ed to d em on str ate co ns tit

uti on all y d ef

ect ive ass ist an ce o f c ouns el pursuant to Strickland v. Washington , 4 66 U. S. 66 8 (1 98 4). Un de r Strickland ’s two -pr on g te st, pe tit ion er “ m

us t (1 ) de m on str ate that hi s co un sel ’s p erf orm an ce f

ell be low anob jec tiv e st an dard of rea so na ble ne ss i n li ght of

pre va ili ngpro fe ssi on al n orm s; and (2) af fi rm ati ve ly p rov e p rej ud ice3

ari sin g f rom co un sel ’s a lle ge dly

de fi cie nt r ep res entat ion .” Ca rri on v. Sm ith , 549 F.3d 583, 588 (2d Ci r. 2 00 8) ( int ern al q

uo tat ion m ark s o m itt ed ). “ To sat isf y th e f irs t pr on g—

the pe rf orm an ce prong—the rec ord must dem onstrate that ‘couns el made errors so ser ious that c ounsel was not fu nc tio nin g a s th e “c ouns el” gu arante ed the de fe nd ant by

the Si xth Am en dm ent.’ ” Wil

so n v . Maz zu ca , 570 F.3d 490, 502 (2d Cir. 2009) (quot ing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). As to the prejudice prong, “[t]he defendant must show that there i s a reasonabl e probabili ty that, butfor
co un sel ’s unp rof

ess ion al e rro rs, the res ult

of the pro cee din g w ou ld h av e b een dif fe rent.” Strickland, 4 66 U. S. at 6 94 . A s a g en era l m att er, ho we ve r, t he re i s a “ str on g p res um

pti on ” th at the att orn eyin q

ue sti on pro vid ed , if

no t id eal rep res entat ion , th enat l eas t co m pe tent as sis tan ce, which obligate s the revi ewing court to a dopt a deferenti al posture
. See id. at 6 89 . M ore ov er,
un de r th e Anti ter

ror ism an d E ff ect ive De ath

Pe na ltyAc t of

19 96 (“A ED PA ”), “p eti tio ne r m us t ide nti fy so m e in cre m ent of

inc orr ect ne ss b ey on d e rro r [ in t

he state c ourt’ s d eci sio n] in o rde r to ob tai n h ab eas rel ief

.” Jo nes v. Wes t , 5 55 F. 3d 90 , 9 6 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ). As ev ide nc ed

bythe rec ord , p eti tio ne r he re: (1) stated un eq uiv oc all y at th e “n o p lea ”
co llo quy th at h e h ad

ha d a fu ll o pp ort

un ityto c on sid er the ple a o ff er, but pr ef

err ed to g o to tri al, J. A. 19 -20 ; (2 ) f

urt he r ac kn ow led ge d th at h e co uld rec eiv e a “ su

bs tantia llylon ge r se nte nc e” a s a result, id. at 19; (3) wa s ad vis ed that th e p lea

of fe r w as “ ge ne rou s, ” id. at 2 50 ; (4 ) w as a dv ise d in the normal course of attorney Brenner’s pr actice t hat the cas e against hi m w as substant ial; ( 5)
wa s li ke ly i nf

orm ed of his senten cin g e xp os ure in t he no rm al c ourse of

att orn eyBr enne r’s practic e; (6) was advi sed that the presidi ng judge had a reput ation “as aharsh sente ncer,” J.A. 245; and (7) evi denced no willi ngness to plea d guilty atany point in the underlying pr oceedings giv enhis unrel entin g p rot est ati on s o f i nn oc en ce. W e th ere fo re a gre e w iththe dis tri ct c ourt that4

pe tit ion er h as b oth

fa ile d to de m on str ate pre jud ice as r eq

uir ed un de r Strickland an d f

ail ed to overcome AEDP A’s deference to the underlying s tate court proceedi ngs because itcannot be said thatthe stat e court’s applicat ion of Strickland wa s o bje cti ve ly u

nre aso na ble
. Thus, for substantia lly the r easons stat ed in the dis trictcourt’s t horough opinion, we hereby AFFIRMthe distr ict court ’s denial of the habeas peti tion. FOR THECOURT : CATHERINE O’HAGA

N W OLFE, CLE RK