Opinion ID: 771510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exhaustion of the Insufficiency of the Evidence Claim

Text: 15 Prior to bringing a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner must exhaust the remedies available in state court or demonstrate that there is an absence of available State corrective process [or] [that] circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). To have exhausted claims in state court, petitioner must have fairly presented each federal claim to the highest state court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). 16 The district court in the instant case erroneously concluded that Fama had not exhausted his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on depraved indifference murder. On the basis of the State's persuasive, but ultimately incorrect, arguments, it concluded that the only insufficiency of the evidence claim that Fama had made to the Appellate Division in his direct appeal concerned the evidence proving his identity. The claim of legally insufficient evidence, although included in the application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, had not been presented to the Appellate Division, Second Department, to the extent it alleged insufficiency for reasons other than that the evidence did not prove petitioner's identity as the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Fama, 69 F. Supp. 2d at 392. 17 Fama's brief to the Appellate Division compels us to find that this conclusion cannot stand. It is true that under the heading The Evidence Was Insufficient, the discussion primarily concerned Fama's identity. However, Fama also mentioned the depraved indifference claim in that section when he stated, In this case the evidence was so inconsistent, so non-conclusive and so conflicting, that the conclusion that Joseph Fama either shout [sic] Yusef Hawkins or acted with a depraved mind sufficient to convict him of the second count, cannot be reached as a matter of law (emphasis added). More important, under the heading After the Jury Began Deliberating the Court Altered Its Charge and Gave the Jury Instructions Which Were Clearly Wrong and Unlawful, Fama discussed, at some length, the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the depraved indifference count. He began that discussion, We also submit that not only did the Court wrongfully alter its charge after defense counsel had relied on the charge when he summed up, but there was not even any basis to support the Depraved Murder conviction (emphasis added). Despite the confusing section appellations, and the overlapping arguments regarding the insufficiency of the depraved indifference evidence and the allegedly incorrect depraved indifference jury charge, the fact is that Fama argued the issue, cited cases, applied the law to the facts, and fairly presented the issue to the state court. We find, therefore, that Fama exhausted his claim that the evidence of depraved indifference murder was insufficient.