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.

Waid v. Burge

March 16, 2010

CHARLES W. WAID, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN BURGE, SUPERINTENDENT RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Michael A. Telesca United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Pro se petitioner, Charles W. Waid ("Petitioner"), has filed a timely petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his custody pursuant to a judgment entered October 5, 2004, in New York State, Niagara County, County Court, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law ("Penal Law") § 130.65[1]).

For the reasons stated below, habeas relief is denied and the petition is dismissed.

II. Factual Background and Procedural History

Petitioner was indicted under Indictment No. 2003-500 and charged with one count of rape in the first degree, two counts of rape in the third degree, two counts of endangering the welfare of child, and one count of criminal contempt in the first degree. The charges arose from sexual contact that occurred between the thirty- one year old Petitioner and a fifteen-year old girl ("the victim") in March of 2003. Pre-Plea Minutes of 05/27/04, 2.

After Petitioner was arraigned, the People offered him the opportunity to plead guilty by way of a Superior Court Information ("SCI") to sexual abuse in the first degree. The prosecutor explained to the court that the plea offer would not be available under the original indictment because said indictment did not contain a charge of sexual abuse in the first degree. The Court agreed to allow the People to file an SCI.*fn1 The People did so, and the accompanying felony complaint charged Petitioner with the same six crimes that were in the original indictment and an additional crime, sexual abuse in the first degree. Petitioner and his attorney executed a waiver of indictment, waived a reading of the felony complaint, pleaded not guilty and waived a preliminary hearing. Petitioner acknowledged, on the record, that he waived his right to have the matter presented to the grand jury, and acknowledged that he had executed the written waiver of grand jury presentment. The court then conducted a plea colloquy during which Petitioner acknowledged that he was waiving his right to appeal. Petitioner pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree (count six of the SCI), waived his right to appeal, and received a sentencing commitment of no more than three years. Plea Minutes [P.M.] of 10/05/04, 7-11.

On November 30, 2004, Petitioner was sentenced to a determinate period of three years with a three year post-release period of supervision. Sentencing Minutes of 11/30/04, 17.

Petitioner appealed his judgment of conviction to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which was unanimously affirmed. People v. Waid, 26 A.D.3d 734 (4th Dep't 2006). Leave to appeal to the New Court of Appeals was denied. People v. Waid, 7 N.Y.3d 839 (2006).

No collateral motions were filed.

This habeas petition followed (Docket #1).

III. General Principles Applicable to Habeas Review

A. The AEDPA Standard of Review

Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner only if a claim that was "adjudicated on the merits" in state court "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or if it "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." § 2254(d)(2). A state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000). The phrase, "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," limits the law governing ...


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.