Manning v. Rock

Filing 15

OPINION: Because Manning has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and because there was an independent and adequate state-law procedural bar precluding federal habeas review, a certificate of appealability will not issue. SO ORDERED. (See Order.) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 1/12/2015) (ajs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------X

TROY MANNING,
Petitioner,

12 Civ. 3706 (TPG)

-against-

OPINION

DAVID ROCK, SUPERINTENDENT,
UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.

---------------------------------------------X
On December 5, 2014, this court denied petitioner Troy Manning's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, Manning claimed
that the state trial court did not make sufficient factual findings to
support a decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of an
undercover police officer, thus violating Manning's constitutional right to
a public trial.
In denying Manning's petition, this court cited to a previous ruling
on this issue from the New York Appellate Division, First Department,
which found that Manning failed to make a contemporaneous and
specific objection to the adequacy of the judge's factual findings
regarding the courtroom closure. (Dkt. No. 10 (citing People v. Manning,
78 A.D.3d 585, 586 (1st Dep't 2010)).) This court concluded: "In failing
to comply with New York's contemporaneous objection rule, Manning
1

neglected to preserve his objection to the trial judge's decision.
Accordingly,

Manning procedurally defaulted on his constitutional

claims, and this court declines to consider the merits of his petition."
(Dkt. No. 10.)
Manning, through counsel, now seeks a certificate of appealability
("COA'') from this court on three 1ssues:

(1) whether the Appellate

Division's holding that "the [trial] court failed to set forth adequate
findings of fact to justify closure" was "Constitutionally valid," "a firmly
established and regularly followed state practice," or an "exorbitant
application of a generally sound rule" (internal quotation marks omitted);
(2) whether the trial court's order closing the courtroom constituted an
"unreasonable

application

of clearly

established

Federal

law

as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States"; and (3) "whether
the trial court was required to expressly, on the record, consider and to
adopt any reasonable alternatives to closing the courtroom."

(Dkt. No.

12 at 2-4.)

A petitioner is entitled to a COA if he has made "a substantial
showing of the denial of constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253. When,
as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, a
petitioner seeking a COA must show both "that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of
a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable
2

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

"Determining whether a COA

should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds
has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims
and one directed at the district court's procedural holding. Section 2253
mandates that both showings be made before the court of appeals may
entertain the appeal." Id. at 484-85 (2000); see also Rhagi v. Artuz, 309
F.3d 103, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2002).
After reviewing the record, the court finds that its holding of a
procedural default was correct and not "debatable."

There is a

substantial basis in New York law for the Appellate Division's conclusion
that Manning did not make the precise nature of his objection clear to
the state trial court at the appropriate time, and thus failed to preserve
his constitutional claim for appeal. And, as this court previously held,
federal

habeas

courts

have

repeatedly

recognized

New

York's

contemporaneous objection rule as an independent and adequate statelaw ground to deny habeas review. (Dkt. No. 10 (citing Downs v. Lape,
657 F.3d 97, 102-104 (2d Cir. 2011); Kozlowski v. Hulihan, 511 F. App'x
21, 25-26 (2d Cir. 2013)).)
Because Manning has not made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right, and because there was an independent

3

and adequate state-law procedural bar precluding federal habeas review,
a certificate of appealability will not issue.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
January 12, 2015

U.S. District Judge

4