Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 9, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-05812·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RAMI BALY, Petitioner, 22-CV-5812 (LTS) -against- CERTIFICATE OF APPEALS SUPREME ORDER TO AMEND COURT OF NEW YORK, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is not currently incarcerated, proceeds pro se. He brings this application, which is styled as a “motion for a certificate of appealability,” to challenge his 2017 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. The Court directs Petitioner, within 30 days, to file an amended petition if he intends to pursue a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 As explained below, if Petitioner files an amended petition, he must include facts showing that he is in custody (physical or constructive) on the challenged conviction, and clarify the constitutional grounds on which he seeks relief and whether these grounds have been exhausted in the state courts. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has the authority to review and dismiss a § 2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading from the state, “[i]f it plainly appears

1 On July 21, 2022, the Court received Petitioner’s $5.00 filing fee for this matter. from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; see Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). BACKGROUND Petitioner Rami Baly was arrested on June 13, 2016, in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. (ECF 1 at 3.) He was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of public lewdness and exposure of a person. Petitioner indicates that the New York Supreme Court, New York County, entered judgment on March 2, 2017, sentencing him to “three years of probation and other added restitution.” (Id. at 4.) The conviction was affirmed on appeal. See People v. Baly, 157 N.Y.S.3d 662 (1st Dep’t

Jan. 10, 2022). The Appellate Division, First Department, rejected Petitioner’s arguments that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the witness testimony was insufficient to establish Petitioner’s intent to commit the crime. Id. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Baly, 38 N.Y.3d 948 (Mar. 31, 2022). Petitioner now indicates that “certification of appeals is requested to request habeas corpus.” (ECF 1 at 4.) The grounds on which he seeks relief are unclear. Petitioner asserts the following: The procedure broke the defendants Due Process, by wrongly reaching a verdict in this case. The District Attorney counsel of the county of New York on ‘Rules of Evidence,’ 60.50 statement of defendant; corroboration of a person, may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed. (Id. at 6.) 2 He also argues, for example, the following: Under advocate witness rule, where a prosecuting attorney is to be called as a witness by defense and his testimony will be adverse to people, he should be disqualified. (People v. Perry, 1985, 127 Misc. 2d 562, 486). The statute introduces the mind to assert that reasonable cause exists to evidence information to appear reliable to disclose facts or circumstances collectively of such weight and persuasive new to convince a person or ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience” that likely such offense was committed and that a person committed it. (Id. at 9.) In terms of the relief requested, Petitioner refers to a certificate of appealability and also states that he “request[s] Article 70 Special Proceeding, under Art. 78 Habeas Corpus.”3 (Id.) DISCUSSION I. Characterization of application as a Section 2254 petition Petitioner challenges his 2017 judgment of conviction in state court. He invokes New York State’s habeas corpus statute, N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 7200, but relief under that statute is not available in federal court. If Petitioner intends to proceed in federal court, his application must be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254 applies when a petitioner challenges “the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is

2 The spelling, grammar, and punctuation in all quoted material are from the original. 3 The petition is not captioned for this Court or the state court. (ECF 1 at 1.) Petitioner also submitted an order to show cause, which is captioned for the state court (ECF 6 at 1), which suggests that he may have intended to file this action in state court rather than federal court. in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petitioner generally has only one opportunity within the limitations period for an adjudication of the merits of his challenge to a judgment of conviction. See Cook v. New York

State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274, 281 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a prisoner cannot bring a ‘second or successive’ section 2254 petition except under narrow circumstances.”). District courts therefore must notify a petitioner before recharacterizing an application, brought under some other provision, as a Section 2254 petition. Id. at 282 (converting a mislabeled petition to one brought under Section 2254 could cause the petitioner to forfeit claims “due to the severe ‘second or successive’ restrictions of section 2244 (for state prisoners)”). If Petitioner intends to proceed with this action in federal court, the application must be recharacterized as a Section 2254 petition. The Court therefore directs Petitioner, within 30 days, to file an amended Section 2254 petition, as described below. If Petitioner does not file an

amended Section 2254 petition within 30 days, or seek an extension of time to do so, the Court will dismiss this application without prejudice. II.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York (Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Jones v. Cunningham
371 U.S. 236 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Maleng v. Cook
490 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1989)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Charles D. Scanio v. United States
37 F.3d 858 (Second Circuit, 1994)
Sean Earley v. Timothy Murray
451 F.3d 71 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Ramos v. Walker
88 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss
532 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court, 2001)
People v. Perry
127 Misc. 2d 562 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Acosta v. Artuz
221 F.3d 117 (Second Circuit, 2000)