Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

D'OTTAVIO v. UNITED STATES

July 24, 1992

SALVATORE D'OTTAVIO, Petitioner, against UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent(s).


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN E. SPRIZZO

 Petitioner has filed a second pro se motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *fn1" For the reasons set forth below, the petition is dismissed.

 DISCUSSION

 Petitioner alleges that the government suppressed two audiotapes cited in his petition which contained material that should have been disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), and that his trial counsel's representation was ineffective. *fn2"

 Moreover, the Brady claim is procedurally barred under McCleskey v. Zant, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517, 111 S. Ct. 1454 (1991), because petitioner is "raising a claim in a subsequent [habeas] petition that he could have raised in his first," id. at 1468, and petitioner has failed to show (1) cause and prejudice for not raising this claim earlier *fn3" or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from failure to hear these claims. Id. at 1470.

 Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel essentially involves the failure of his attorney to request the two tapes from the government and an allegation that his counsel did not properly cross-examine Agent Pistone, the government's main witness. See Petition at 5. This claim, however, does not satisfy the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), because petitioner has failed to show "that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment," and that prejudice has occurred. Id. at 687. Clearly, the failure to request these two tapes cannot be seen as "serious" error which caused prejudice since one tape is arguably inculpatory and the other does not exist. In addition, counsel's decision on how to cross-examine Agent Pistone falls within the "wide range of reasonable professional assistance" described in Strickland. Id. at 689. Moreover, petitioner previously claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for a variety of reasons in a post-trial motion and in his previous habeas petition, and this Court has rejected those claims. These claims stand on no-better footing. See United States v. D'Ottavio, 87 Cr. 205, Memorandum Opinion and Order (dated January 18, 1989); D'Ottavio v. United States, 91 Civ. 3231, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12781 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 1991).

 CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, the petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the petition and close the above-captioned action.

 It is SO ORDERED.

 Dated: New York, New York

 July 24, 1992

 John E. Sprizzo

 United States District ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.