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.

Carter v. Connell

May 23, 2007

JAMES R. CARTER, PETITIONER,
v.
SUSAN CONNELL, SUPERINTENDENT, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

The Clerk of the Court has sent Petitioner Carter's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which he filed in accordance with this Court's April 3, 2007 Order, to the Court for its review. See Dkt. No. 4.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Original petition

In his original petition, Petitioner complained about a September 20, 1991 judgment rendered in Broome County Court, wherein he pled guilty to one count of sodomy and one count of promoting prison contraband.*fn1 On September 26, 1991, the court sentenced Petitioner to eight to twenty-four years' imprisonment on the sodomy charge and one to six years' imprisonment on the promoting prison contraband charge. See Dkt. No. 1. At the time of the plea and sentencing, counsel represented Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that he accepted the plea agreement and proposed sentence on the advice of counsel.

On February 23, 2007, this Court issued an Order directing Petitioner to file an amended petition. See Dkt. No. 2. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a request to withdraw the petition and indicated his intention to refile the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dkt. No. 3. By Order dated April 3, 2007, the Court advised Petitioner of the ramifications of such action and permitted him additional time in which to file an amended petition. See Dkt. No. 4. The Court also advised Petitioner about the legal and factual issues he had to address if he were seeking leave to rely upon "newly discovered evidence" as the basis for bringing a petition before this Court. See id.

B. Amended Petition

Petitioner filed his amended petition on April 24, 2007. See Dkt. No. 6. Petitioner also filed a copy of a recent New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, decision denying him permission to appeal his application brought pursuant to CPL § 440.*fn2 See Dkt. No. 7.

In his amended petition, Petitioner alleges that he obtained new evidence when Broome County Judge Martin E. Smith issued his September 30, 2005 decision on his CPL § 440 motion to vacate his conviction. That newly discovered evidence includes the fact that there were meetings between Petitioner's defense counsel, the district attorney, and the assigned judge on May 2 and 30, 1991, and on September 5, 1991, that the plea agreement was reached off the record on September 5, 1991, and that a determination was made, after an exchange of information between the District Attorney and defense counsel, that the State either was not going to offer or simply could not prove that Petitioner's prior convictions would serve as a basis for him to be treated as a second or repeat felony offender. Petitioner also alleges that he was unaware that the judge told defense counsel that, if the matter proceeded to trial on the multiple counts in the indictment and Petitioner was convicted on multiple counts, the judge would impose the maximum sentence permissible on each count, including a number of consecutive sentences. In his amended petition, Petitioner characterizes this communication of the judge's intentions as the judge improperly forcing defense counsel to accept the first-time felony offender sentencing arrangement.*fn3

In his amended petition, Petitioner raises the following grounds for relief: (1) his guilty pleas are unconstitutional, (2) the trial court subjected him to invidious discrimination, (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (4) his convictions were obtained through violation of his due process rights, and (5) his judgments of conviction are null and void. See Dkt. No. 6.

III. DISCUSSION

Section 2244(d)(1) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that federal habeas petitions challenging a judgment of a state court are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Specifically, § 2244(d) provides that

(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The ...


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.