Opinion ID: 781039
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjudication of Eze's Federal Claim on the Merits

Text: 38 Eze argues that the Appellate Division failed to adjudicate his claim on the merits because its decision cited the New York test for ineffective assistance from People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 (1981), but failed to mention the federal test from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See People v. Eze, 217 A.D.2d 987, 631 N.Y.S.2d 268, 268 (4th Dep't 1995). According to Eze, because Baldi and Strickland set forth different tests for ineffective assistance, see infra II.A., the Appellate Division did not adjudicate his federal ineffective assistance claim. 39 AEDPA's deferential standard is limited to claims that were adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). If a state court has failed to adjudicate a claim on the merits, we apply the pre-AEDPA standards, and review de novo the state court disposition of the petitioner's federal constitutional claims. Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (citing Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 55 (2d Cir.2001)). To adjudicate a claim on the merits, the state court need not mention the argument raised or cite relevant case law, Brown, 283 F.3d at 498, or even explain[] its reasoning process, Sellan v. Kuhlman, 261 F.3d 303, 311 (2d Cir.2001). Rather, a state court adjudicates a claim on its merits by (1) dispos[ing] of the claim `on the merits,' and (2) reduc[ing] its disposition to judgment. Id. at 312. Whether a claim has been disposed on its merits turns on: `(1) what the state courts have done in similar cases; (2) whether the history of the case suggests that the state court was aware of any ground for not adjudicating the case on the merits; and (3) whether the state court's opinion suggests reliance upon procedural grounds rather than a determination on the merits.' Id. at 314 (quoting Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 274 (5th Cir.1999)). 40 Since Sellan, we have given a broad reading to state court dispositions. Norde v. Keane, 294 F.3d 401, 410 (2d Cir.2002). We have explained that the state court need only dispose of the petitioner's federal claim on substantive grounds, and reduce that disposition to judgment. No further articulation of its rationale or elucidation of its reasoning process is required. Aparicio, 269 F.3d at 93-94. In fact, an issue may be considered to be adjudicated on its merits even when the state court does not specifically mention the claim but uses general language referable to the merits. Norde, 294 F.3d at 410. 41 Eze alerted the Appellate Division to the federal nature of his claim by citing Strickland in his pro se supplemental brief. Therefore, the Appellate Division was apprised of Eze's federal claim and the governing federal law when it rejected Eze's ineffective assistance claim. The Appellate Division held that [t]he record does not support the contentions of the defendant that ... he was denied effective assistance of counsel. People v. Eze, 631 N.Y.S.2d at 268. This language demonstrates that the Appellate Division disposed of the claim on substantive grounds. See Aparicio, 269 F.3d at 94 (concluding that the Appellate Division adjudicated the petitioner's claims on the merits because there is nothing in its decision to indicate that the claims were decided on anything but substantive grounds). Therefore, under Sellan and its progeny, the Appellate Division adjudicated Eze's federal ineffective assistance claim on the merits so as to trigger § 2254(d)(1)'s review.