Wilson v. Lamanna

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 27, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-10714·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARCUS WILSON, Petitioner, 21-CV-10714 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND AMY LAMANNA, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2017 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. By order dated December 15, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within sixty 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 Section 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 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 public court records. In 2017, a New York County jury found Petitioner guilty of two counts of robbery in the second degree. (ECF 1

¶ 9.) The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the conviction, and the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner leave to appeal.1 See People v. Wilson, 186 A.D.3d 1166 (1st Dep’t 2020), 36 N.Y. 3d 1054 (Jan. 6, 2021). In May 2021, while Petitioner was in punitive segregation in Auburn Correctional Facility, prison officials took Petitioner’s legal materials, which hindered his efforts to file in the trial court a motion to vacate the judgment under N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11a-b.) Thereafter, on an unspecified date, Petitioner filed a Section 440.10 motion, setting forth the following grounds: double jeopardy/identification speedy trial/actual innocence ineffective assistance of counsel legally insufficient prosecutorial instrument no waiver for grand jury denial never conceded to adjournment D.A. offered 7 years and lawyer said not to take it failed to turn over discovery of police. (Id. ¶ 12.) That motion is pending. Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief from this Court on the following grounds: (1) his criminal proceedings, which resulted in two mistrials, violated double jeopardy; (2) his right to a

1 The Appellate Division’s affirmance addressed the following issues: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony that Petitioner had access to and was in possession of a starter pistol that resembled the weapon used in the crimes; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting surveillance video; (3) Petitioner’s allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on summation was unpreserved for appellate review, and the Appellate Division declined to address it in the interest of justice; and (4) Petitioner was properly adjudicated as a persistent felony offender. See People v. Wilson, 186 A.D.3d 1166 (1st Dep’t 2020). speedy trial was violated; (3) his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the double jeopardy issue and failing to challenge the admission of unauthenticated surveillance video; and (4) there was legally insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. (Id. ¶ 9.) In response to questions on the petition form about whether Petitioner exhausted his state court

remedies, Petitioner wrote “pending,” and “original was stolen at Auburn May 2021 @ SHU.” (Id.) DISCUSSION I. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies A state prisoner must exhaust all available state remedies before filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 2254. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). This exhaustion doctrine means that the state courts must be given the first opportunity to review constitutional errors associated with 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)). In order to exhaust any issues for purpose of habeas corpus review, Petitioner must appeal his judgment of conviction to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 460.70 (McKinney 2010). Should that court’s decision adversely affect Petitioner, he should then seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court. Id. at § 460.20 (McKinney 2010); see Bagley v. LaVallee, 332 F.2d 890, 892 (2d Cir. 1964). Should Petitioner raise for habeas corpus relief any grounds raised in N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 440.10 motions and/or other collateral motions, he must show that those grounds have been completely exhausted by seeking leave to appeal to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Ramos v. Walker, 88 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The petition does not establish that Petitioner has exhausted his state-court remedies with respect to any of the grounds on which he seeks habeas corpus relief. The only grounds that have

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

Wilson v. Lamanna, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Wilson v. Lamanna (Wilson v. Lamanna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Rhines v. Weber
544 U.S. 269 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Acosta v. Artuz
221 F.3d 117 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Victor Zarvela v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent
254 F.3d 374 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Ramos v. Walker
88 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D. New York, 2000)
People v. Wilson
2020 NY Slip Op 05151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)