United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
W. Thompson United States District Judge
petitioner, Robert Buie, who is incarcerated and proceeding
pro se, has filed petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his November 2008
burglary and sexual assault convictions. For the reasons that
follow, the petition will be dismissed.
Factual and Procedural Background
November 5, 2008, a jury in Connecticut Superior Court for
the Judicial District of Waterbury convicted the petitioner
of one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault in the
first degree, one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated
sexual assault in the first degree, one count of burglary in
the first degree and two counts of accessory to aggravated
sexual assault in the first degree. See State v.
Buie, 129 Conn.App. 777, 779-80, 785-86 (2011). On
January 9, 2009, a judge sentenced the petitioner to a total
effective sentence of forty years of imprisonment and fifteen
years of special parole. See Id. at 785-86.
appeal, the petitioner challenged his conviction on one
ground. See Id. at 780. On July 5, 2011, the
Connecticut Appellate Court concluded that the apparent
authority doctrine exception to the warrant requirement did
not violate the right of a citizen to be free from
unreasonable searches under the Connecticut Constitution and
the police reasonably believed that the petitioner's
female friend had common authority over his apartment. See
Id. at 789, 806-07. The Connecticut Supreme Court
granted certification on the following issue: “Did the
Appellate Court properly conclude that, in the context of a
search of a private home, the apparent authority doctrine
does not violate article first, § 7, of the constitution
of Connecticut?” State v. Buie, 303 Conn. 903
22, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the
Connecticut Appellate Court's determination that the
application of the apparent authority doctrine to a search of
a private home does not violate article first, § 7 of
the Connecticut Constitution and also affirmed the
Connecticut Appellate Court's judgment upholding the
trial court's judgment of conviction of the petitioner.
See State v. Buie, 312 Conn. 574, 577 (2014)(per
his direct appeal was pending, the petitioner filed three
state habeas petitions. See Buie v. Warden, No.
CV14-4005884S, 2017 WL 2452160, at *8 (Conn. Super. Ct. May
11, 2017). A judge consolidated all three cases under the
last case number. See id.
September 28, 2012, after a hearing on the claims raised in
the amended petition filed in the consolidated cases, a judge
denied all the claims. See Buie v. Warden, No.
TSR-CV12-4004375S, 2012 WL 7831271, at *2 (Conn. Sup. Ct.
Sept. 28, 2012). On June 17, 2014, the Connecticut Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal per curiam. See Buie
v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn.App. 901 (2014).
On September 25, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied
his petition for certification to appeal. See Buie v.
Commissioner of Correction, 314 Conn. 910 (2014).
December 5, 2013, the petitioner filed a fourth state habeas
petition. See Buie v. Warden, No. TSR-CV14-4005884S
(Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 5, 2013). On April 11, 2016, the
petitioner filed a fifth state habeas petition. See Buie
v. Warden, No. TSR-CV16-4007998S (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr.
11, 2016). On August 8, 2016, a judge consolidated
the fifth petition, Buie v. Warden, No.
TSR-CV16-4007998S, with the fourth petition, Buie v.
Warden, No. TSR-CV14-4005884S. See Id. (Docket
Entry 106.00). The judge handling the fifth petition
designated the fourth petition, Buie v. Warden, No.
TSR-CV14-4005884S, as the lead case. See id.
November 8 and 9, 2016, a judge held a trial on the fifteen
claims of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel asserted
in the consolidated habeas petitions. See Buie, No.
CV14-4005884S, 2017 WL 2452160, at *9-10. On May 11, 2017,
the judge denied the consolidated petitions. See Id.
at *17. The petitioner has appealed the denial of the
consolidated petitions and the appeal remains pending. See
Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1 at 7, 10, 12, 14, 16.
prerequisite to habeas relief under section 2254 is the
exhaustion of all available state remedies. See
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842
(1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The exhaustion
requirement seeks to promote considerations of comity and
respect between the federal and state judicial systems. See
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 9 (2012)
(“Federal habeas courts reviewing the constitutionality
of a state prisoner's conviction and sentence are guided
by rules designed to ensure that state-court judgments are
accorded the finality and respect necessary to preserve the
integrity of legal proceedings within our system of
federalism.”); Coleman v. Thompson; 501 U.S.
722, 731 (1991) (noting the exhaustion requirement, codified
at 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), is “grounded in
principles of comity; in a federal system, the States should
have the first opportunity to address and correct alleged
violations of [a] state prisoner's federal
satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must present
the essential factual and legal bases of his federal claim to
each appropriate state court, including the highest state
court capable of reviewing it, in order to give state courts
a full and fair “opportunity to pass upon and correct
alleged violations of its prisoners' federal
rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365
(1995) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A federal claim has been “fairly present[ed]
in each appropriate state court, including a state supreme
court with powers of discretionary review, ” if it
“alert[s] that court to the federal nature of the
claim.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29
(2004) (internal parentheses and quotation marks omitted). A
petitioner “does not fairly present a claim to a state
court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief .
. . that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim
in order to find material . . . that does so.”
Id. at 32.