Arokium v. Commissioner of Corrections

Filing 4

ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/14/2017. (Townsend, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHARLES AROKIUM,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 3:17-cv-00002 (JAM)

COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

RULING DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Charles Arokium brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. He is currently on parole after being convicted in Connecticut state court for
possession of narcotics with intent to sell. Petitioner argues that his conviction was based on
evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But it is well established that, if the
state courts have provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment
claim, federal courts cannot grant habeas corpus relief on that claim. I will therefore deny the
petition.
BACKGROUND
In early 2009, an officer with the Stamford Police Department received a tip from a
confidential informant that a man was selling cocaine out of a hotel room. See State v. Arokium,
143 Conn. App. 419, 421–22 (2013). The informant said that he knew the man as “Charlie,” and
gave the officer a physical description of the man. The officer learned from the hotel’s clerk that
the room was being rented in petitioner’s name. Ibid.
The officer had the informant make a controlled purchase from the seller to confirm that
cocaine was being sold. The officer then stationed himself outside of the hotel room, and saw at
least two individuals enter and exit the hotel room. Id. at 423. Eventually, the officer noticed

petitioner leave the hotel room and, after following him on foot, the officer determined that
petitioner matched the physical description of the cocaine seller given by the informant. Id. at
424. Petitioner got into a cab in the hotel parking lot. The officer approached the cab, displayed
his badge, and ordered petitioner out of the car. Petitioner did not immediately comply with the
order, and the officer opened the cab’s door and pulled petitioner out and onto the ground to be
handcuffed. Id. at 424–25. While the officer was removing petitioner from the car, a bag
petitioner had been holding fell to the ground and spilled some of its contents. The officer
noticed, among other things, a clear plastic bag containing a white powder that he suspected to
be cocaine. Id. at 425.
Petitioner was charged in Connecticut Superior Court with possession of narcotics and
possession of narcotics with intent to sell. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by
the police when he was pulled from the cab, arguing that the police had neither reasonable
suspicion to stop him nor probable cause to arrest him. Ibid. The trial court denied the motion
after a suppression hearing, and petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial. Id. at 425–26.
Petitioner appealed his conviction, reiterating the arguments made in his motion to
suppress. Id. The Connecticut Appellate Court considered at length and then rejected petitioner’s
challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress. Id. at 433–38. Petitioner sought review in the
Connecticut Supreme Court, but his petition was denied. Doc. #1 at 2.
Petitioner later sought postconviction review in Connecticut state court, contending that
his trial counsel was ineffective in the manner that he litigated the suppression hearing.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the state habeas trial court denied this claim:
Accordingly, the court concludes that the petitioner has failed to present any persuasive
evidence that shows [trial counsel] rendered deficient performance for failing to
investigate and locate all potential witnesses who would have provided contradictory
evidence to the police testimony at the suppression hearing. The petitioner also has failed

to show that he was not advised about his right to testify at the suppression hearing.
Finally, the petitioner has not presented any legal authority to this court that [trial
counsel] could have relied upon in the motion to suppress that undermines this court’s
confidence in the outcome of the motion to suppress hearing, nor has the petitioner
demonstrated that the strategy [trial counsel] employed was unreasonable.
Arokium v. Warden, State Prison, 2014 WL 3584746, at *12 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2014). The
Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed petitioner’s appeal of the habeas court’s ruling, see 164
Conn. App. 901 (2016), and the Connecticut Supreme Court likewise declined to review
petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner has now filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts have limited authority to overturn state court convictions. See generally 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The limitations on this authority are even stricter in the context of a habeas
petition raising Fourth Amendment claims. It is well established that a federal court may not
grant habeas corpus relief on the basis of a Fourth Amendment claim “where the State has
provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation” of the claim. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S.
465, 482 (1976). A federal court may only review a Fourth Amendment claim brought in a
habeas petition “(a) if the state has provided no corrective procedures at all to redress the alleged
fourth amendment violations; or (b) if the state has provided a corrective mechanism, but the
defendant was precluded from using that mechanism because of an unconscionable breakdown in
the underlying process.” Capellan v. Riley, 975 F.2d 67, 70 (2d Cir. 1992).
Petitioner’s only stated claim here—that his arrest “was the result of an illegal stop,
search, and seizure in violation of [his] constitutional rights”—arises from the Fourth
Amendment. Doc. #1 at 5. But it is clear that he was able to fully and fairly litigate this issue in
the Connecticut state courts. Accordingly, I have no authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to
review petitioner’s claim that he was convicted in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Nor do I understand the petition to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
notwithstanding petitioner’s cryptic statement that “some of my important issues were not
raise[d] because my trial lawyer did not argue/preserve them at trial.” Doc. #1 at 6. Even so
construed, the petition does nothing to show how his trial counsel was ineffective, much less to
show that the state habeas court’s denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim involved
unreasonably wrong findings of facts or conclusions of law. See, e.g., Woods v. Donald, 135 S.
Ct. 1372 (2015) (per curiam) (describing highly deferential standard of review that federal courts
apply under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. #1) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 14th day of January 2017.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge