United States District Court, S.D. New York
April 18, 2005.
MARK WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
P.W. ANNETTS, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: THOMAS GRIESA, Senior District Judge
This is a habeas corpus petition by a state prisoner, filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the applicable rules, the
court has examined the petition and has decided that it must be
This petition relates to a judgment in Supreme Court, New York
County, dated October 30, 2000, convicting petitioner, after a
jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the
third degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or
near school grounds. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent
prison terms of four and one-half to nine years.
Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed
the conviction on the school grounds counts because of
insufficient evidence, but affirmed the conviction on the third
degree count. Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals
Petitioner now makes three contentions: First, that the trial
court deprived petitioner of due process and of a fair trial when the
court permitted the prosecutor to elicit testimony that $124 in
cash was recovered from the codefendant after the arrest,
although petitioner was charged only with a single $10 sale;
second, the evidence was insufficient to prove petitioner's
guilt on the school grounds count; third, that the third degree
count involves essentially the same offense as the school grounds
count and petitioner should not be convicted on both of these
These are precisely the same grounds relied on in the direct
appeal. Dealing with their merits on the present petition,
obviously the second point simply should not be have been
presented, because the school grounds count was dismissed on
direct appeal. As to the third point, again there is no basis for
it since the Appellate Division ruling clearly means that
plaintiff was not convicted on duplicative counts. As to the
first point, the recovery of cash from a co-defendant was a
relevant fact. In any event, there was no conceivable violation
of petitioner's Constitutional rights by allowing this evidence
to be presented.
For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.