Summary
This memorandum decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Brent Brevard under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Brevard, who was convicted in New York state court of two counts of first-degree robbery, raises multiple claims including Fourth Amendment violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and challenges to identification procedures. The court finds that Brevard had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims in state court and that the state court's decisions were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Consequently, all ten grounds for relief are denied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Brevard's Fourth Amendment claim is reviewable on habeas corpus
- Whether Brevard's ineffective assistance of counsel claims are meritless
- Whether Brevard was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the pre‑trial lineup
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the robbery convictions
- Whether Brevard's Miranda claim warrants relief
- Whether state evidentiary claims provide a basis for federal habeas review
- Whether the lineup was unduly suggestive under the Fifth Amendment
Holdings
- The petition is denied because the state provided adequate corrective procedures and Brevard was not precluded from using them; therefore the Fourth Amendment claim is barred.
- All ineffective‑assistance claims are rejected as the state court’s determinations were reasonable and not unreasonable under Strickland.
- The claim fails because the right to counsel had not attached at the time of the lineup; therefore the petition is denied.
- The petition is denied because sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find that Brevard displayed a firearm and possessed it during the robberies.
- The claim is rejected because Miranda warnings are not required for pre‑trial lineup identifications, and the Supreme Court has held that physical evidence does not trigger the exclusionary rule.
- State‑law evidentiary claims are barred from federal habeas review; therefore the petition is denied on that ground.
- The claim is procedurally barred because it was not raised on direct appeal and the state court’s procedural dismissal is an adequate independent ground.
Key quotations
“While a defendant has a constitutional right not to have a coerced statement used against him, a defendant does not have a constitutional right to receive Miranda warnings.”
Factual background
In August 2015 the petitioner responded to a Backpage advertisement and was lured to an apartment where he brandished a double‑barrel shotgun, forced two victims to surrender their phones and cash, and fled. The victims later identified Brevard in police lineups. He was arrested, read his Miranda rights, and convicted of robbery.
Procedural history
Brevard was convicted of two counts of first‑degree robbery in Queens County Supreme Court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, 2d Dep't, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. He filed multiple post‑conviction motions in state court, all denied, and subsequently filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus in this district court, which denied the petition.