United States District Court, E.D. New York
January 19, 2005.
MIGUEL MIRANDA, Petitioner,
FLOYD BENNET, Superintendent, Elmira Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID TRAGER, District Judge
Memorandum and Order
On January 20, 1999, pro se petitioner Miguel Miranda ("Miranda" or
"petitioner") filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ
of habeas corpus. The petition was dismissed by this court on July 27,
1999 for the reasons set out in the decision of the Appellate Division
and the State's Memorandum of Law dated March 8, 1999, submitted in
opposition to the petition.*fn1 This court refused to issue a certificate
of appealability. Petitioner applied to the Second Circuit for a
certificate of appealability to permit review of this court's judgment.
On February 26, 2003, the Second Circuit remanded to this court for a
clarification of the ground or grounds on which the petitioner's claims
of prosecutorial misconduct and denial of self-representation were
rejected; as to all other claims raised by petitioner, the Second Circuit
denied a certificate of appealability. See Miranda v. Bennett, 322 F.3d 171
(2d Cir. 2003). On June 25, 2004, this court issued a memorandum and
opinion clarifying the grounds for its previous denial of the petition and
denying the motion for a writ of habeas corpus. On August 2, 2004, petitioner moved for reconsideration of this court's
decision pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed R. Civ. P. In that motion,
petitioner argues, again, that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel and that he was subjected to an unduly harsh sentence. However,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit already
considered these arguments and denied a certificate of appealability with
respect to both of them. And petitioner, for his part, offers no reason
why that decision should be disturbed.
Petitioner also argues that his sentence is invalid under the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),
because he received an enhancement beyond the maximum sentence "based on
facts (other than the fact of his prior convictions) that were neither
presented to the jury not proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration at 7. However, Miranda's sentence became final
more than two years prior to the Supreme Court's Apprendi decision and
the Second Circuit has squarely held that the Supreme Court's Apprendi
ruling does not have retroactive effect. Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372,
379 (2d Cir. 2003); Forbes v. United States, 262 F.3d 143, 146 (2d Cir.
2001) (per curiam).*fn2 For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration of this court's
decision dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.