Madrid v. Miller

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 21, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-11026
StatusUnknown

This text of Madrid v. Miller (Madrid v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Madrid v. Miller, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSE ICU MADRID, Petitioner, 23-CV-11026 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND SUPT. MARK MILLER, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his February 4, 2020 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Rockland County. Plaintiff paid the filing fee to bring this action.1 The Court directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within 60 days of the date of this order as detailed below. 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 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

1 Petitioner initially filed this petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That Court transferred the petition to this District on December 20, 2023. Petitioner signed the petition on November 15, 2023. 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 The following facts are taken from the petition and its attachments. On or about February 4, 2020, in New York State Supreme Court, Rockland County, Petitioner was sentenced to 22 years of incarceration, following his pleading guilty to first-degree manslaughter. Counsel for Petitioner did not file a direct appeal, and Petitioner did not perfect his appeal on his own behalf. Petitioner alleges that he did not pursue an appeal because “no one explained that I could appeal, No one told me anything.” (ECF 1, at 10.) Over three years after Petitioner’s judgment of conviction was entered, he filed an extension of time to file a late appeal in the Appellate Division for the Second Department, under N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. 460.30[1]. Petitioner alleges that he dated this motion, June 6, 2023. In a

letter dated October 16, 2023, Petitioner wrote the Appellate Division asking for an update on his June 6, 2023 request, and attached another motion for an extension time, also dated October 16, 2023, where he argued that his “appeal waiver [was] invalid,” his “sentence [was] harsh & excessive,” someone “fail[ed] to present consequences,” and the “agreement [was] not clear/understandable . . . including [the] failure to inform.” (Id. at 4, 15-18.) In a letter dated November 1, 2023, the Appellate Division notified Petitioner that it never received Plaintiff’s June 6, 2023 motion. (See id. at 30). The Appellate Division also notified Petitioner that, an appeal may be extended, but generally not more than one year after the time to take the appeal has expired (see CPL 460.3[1]) . . . [but] [i]n some other very limited cases, a writ of error coram nobis may be the appropriate avenue for seeking to file an untimely appeal where a defendant’s attorney failed to comply with the defendant’s timely request for the filing of a notice of appeal and the time to move for such relief under CPL 460.30 has expired (see People v. Syville, 15 NY2d 391). (Id.) (emphasis added). In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that he was “denied constitutional right to litigate and file motion for [late] appeal.” (Id. at 7.) He also asserts that his “lawyer failed to i[n]form, in writing of right to appeal.” (Id.) Finally, he appears to raise a ground challenging his plea, broadly claiming it was “not knowingly, voluntary” and that he “failed to understand what was being stated in courtroom, translation issues, etc.” (Id.) DISCUSSION A. Exhaustion of state court remedies Before filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254, an individual incarcerated in a state correctional facility pursuant to a state court judgment must exhaust all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). This exhaustion doctrine requires that the state courts must be given the first opportunity to review alleged constitutional errors associated with a petitioner’s confinement. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999). A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting his claims through a state’s established appellate review process. Id. “A petitioner has ‘fairly presented’ his claim only if he has ‘informed the state court of both the factual and legal premises of the claim he asserts in federal court.’” Dorsey v. Kelly, 112 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir. 1982)). Petitioner indicates that he submitted documents to the Appellate Division, seeking leave

to file a late appeal, and that the Appellate Division informed him that he may seek relief by filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in the event that his lawyer failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf after he requested that his lawyer do so. Petitioner does not indicate whether he has filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Moreover, Petitioner does not state whether the Appellate Division ever ruled on his October 16, 2023 motion for an extension of time to file a late appeal that he apparently submitted when following up on his June 6, 2023 appeal. Thus, at this stage, the Court is unable

to conclude whether Petitioner has completed exhausting his available state court remedies.2 B. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases A petition filed under Section 2254 must conform to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 2(c) requires a petition to specify all of a petitioner’s available grounds for relief, setting forth the facts supporting each of the specified grounds and stating the relief requested.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Acosta v. Artuz
221 F.3d 117 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
People v. Sanchez
207 N.E.2d 356 (New York Court of Appeals, 1965)
Holland v. Florida
177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Madrid v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madrid-v-miller-nysd-2024.