Opinion ID: 1036834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Proceedings Challenging Retrial

Text: On remand, Hoffler moved the trial court to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that, in the absence of an appellate determination that the evidence at the first trial 11 was sufficient to support conviction, he could not be retried without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the Appellate Division was not obliged by either state or federal law to review the sufficiency of the evidence in ordering retrial based on a trial error that did not implicate guilt or innocence. The trial court also declined to conduct its own assessment of sufficiency in the absence of any authority for it to do so on remand where the Appellate Division had not. The trial court nevertheless observed that it had already rejected Hoffler’s sufficiency challenge when raised prior to the entry of the now reversed judgment of conviction. Hoffler next attempted to prevent his retrial by pursuing his double jeopardy/sufficiency challenge in an Article 78 petition to the Third Department. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 7801 et seq.4 In denying relief, the Appellate Division concluded that, as a result of the failure to administer the proper oath to the jury, Hoffler was never placed in jeopardy at the Drabik murder trial. See Hoffler v. Jacon, 72 A.D.3d at 1185, 897 N.Y.S.2d at 757–58. The court explained its conclusion as follows: [U]nder New York’s statutory double jeopardy scheme, a person is considered to have been “prosecuted” on an offense after the action proceeds to trial and the jury has been impaneled and sworn ([N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 40.30(1)(b)]). Thus, in a trial on an indictment, the constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not implicated—and jeopardy does not attach—in the absence of a duly impaneled and sworn jury. . . . [B]ecause it has been 4 “In an Article 78 proceeding, New York state courts are empowered to issue common law writs of certiorari to review, mandamus, and prohibition.” New York State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Pataki, 261 F.3d 156, 168 (2d Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 established [in this case] that the jury was never properly sworn pursuant to [N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §] 270.15(1)(a) and that such failure “invalidated the entire trial,” the trial was a nullity and petitioner was never “prosecuted” under the indictment. Id. at 1184–85, 897 N.Y.S.2d at 757–58 (citations omitted). In these circumstances, the state court concluded that it was not required to address Hoffler’s sufficiency claim on direct appeal before ordering his retrial. See id. at 1185–86, 897 N.Y.S.2d at 758. The New York Court of Appeals denied both Hoffler’s application for leave to appeal, see Hoffler v. Jacon, 15 N.Y.3d 768, 906 N.Y.S.2d 812 (2010), and his subsequent motion for reconsideration, see Hoffler v. Jacon, 15 N.Y.3d 872, 912 N.Y.S.2d 561 (2010). D. Federal Habeas Petition On April 11, 2011, Hoffler petitioned the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition on November 17, 2011, observing that, in light of the Appellate Division’s identification of an error that “invalidated the entire trial, it is patent that petitioner was never placed in jeopardy at his original trial,” eliminating any double jeopardy concern with respect to retrial. Hoffler v. Bezio, 831 F. Supp. 2d at 579 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even if Hoffler had been placed in jeopardy at the Drabik murder trial, however, the district court identified a “sound reason” for the Appellate Division not to reach his sufficiency challenge. See id. at 578 n.6 (internal quotation marks omitted) (construing United States v. Bruno, 661 F.3d 733, 743 (2d Cir. 2011), to permit court ordering retrial not to consider sufficiency of the evidence where sound reason warranted). “Since the Appellate 13 Division determined that no trier of fact could properly consider the evidence offered at Hoffler’s trial, any discussion regarding the evidence presented to that improperly empaneled body may well have been viewed by that court to be advisory in nature,” and it is “well-settled that the giving of [advisory] opinions is not the exercise of the judicial function of New York appellate courts.” Id. at 577 (alteration and emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted). In any event, the district court concluded that any error in the Appellate Division’s failure to rule on Hoffler’s sufficiency challenge before ordering retrial was necessarily harmless because the record evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of first-degree witness-elimination murder. See id. at 578 n.7. This timely appeal followed.