McRae v. New York

Second Circuit

McRae v. New York

98 F. App'x 907

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2004

DocketDocket No. 03-2464

StatusPublished

This text of 98 F. App'x 907 (McRae v. New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McRae v. New York, 98 F. App'x 907 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[908]*908SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Shallicke McRae was convicted in a New York court of aggravated assault on a police officer, reckless endangerment, criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. McRae petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing, inter alia, that the prosecution improperly exercised a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective, and that remarks made by the prosecution denied him a fair trial. The district court (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge) denied the petition but certified these issues for appeal.

After reviewing the petition de novo, Sweet v. Bennett, 353 F.3d 135, 139 (2d Cir.2003), we conclude that the district court correctly applied well-established Supreme Court and Second Circuit law in denying the petition. Therefore, for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its opinion, see McRae v. New York, 271 F.Supp.2d 402 (E.D.N.Y.2003), the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

[908]*908SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner-appellant Shallicke McRae was convicted in a New York court of aggravated assault on a police officer, reckless endangerment, criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. McRae petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, arguing, inter alia, that the prosecution improperly exercised a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective, and that remarks made by the prosecution denied him a fair trial. The district court (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge) denied the petition but certified these issues for appeal.

After reviewing the petition de novo, Sweet v. Bennett, 353 F.3d 135, 139 (2d Cir.2003), we conclude that the district court correctly applied well-established Supreme Court and Second Circuit law in denying the petition. Therefore, for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its opinion, see McRae v. New York, 271 F.Supp.2d 402 (E.D.N.Y.2003), the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 F. App'x 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcrae-v-new-york-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack