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.

JACKSON v. LACY

September 29, 1999

CONSTANTINE JACKSON, PETITIONER,
v.
PETER S. LACY, SUPERINTENDENT AT CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: McAVOY, Chief Judge.

  DECISION and ORDER

This pro se action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was referred by this Court to the Honorable Ralph W. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.4.

Because objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]. The [Court] may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate [judge] with instructions." Id.

Having considered the record de novo, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.

It is therefore,

ORDERED, that petitioner's § 2254 petition is DENIED and DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

This matter was referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation by the Honorable Thomas J. McAvoy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.4. Petitioner Constantine Jackson, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, moves for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In support of his application, Petitioner alleges the following:

  (1) The warrantless entry into his apartment violated
    his constitutional right to be free from an
    unconstitutional search and seizure;
  (2) The trial court judge improperly denied his
    motion to sever his trial from that of his
    co-defendant and improperly denied his motion to
    sever the counts involving injury to one victim
    from those involving another;
  (3) The government did not prove beyond a reasonable
    doubt that he committed 1st degree assault and 1st
    degree robbery;
  (4) He was deprived of his right to a fair trial due
    to prosecutorial misconduct;
  (5) His conviction of 1st degree assault is repugnant
    and should be overturned;
  (6) The sentence that he received is unduly harsh and
    excessive;
  (7) He received ineffective assistance of counsel at
    both the trial and appellate levels; and
  (8) While awaiting sentence at the county jail, he
    was beaten by several deputies, shackled, and
    ...

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.