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.

Carpenter v. Unger

United States District Court, N.D. New York

August 20, 2014

FREDERIC C. CARPENTER, JR., Petitioner,
v.
DAVID UNGER, Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional Facility, Respondent. FREDERIC C. CARPENTER, JR., Petitioner,
v.
DAVID UNGER, Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional Facility, Respondent.

FREDERIC C. CARPENTER, JR., Petitioner, Pro Se, Cortland, New York.

PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General for the State of New York, New York, New York, Counsel for Respondents.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.

Frederic C. Carpenter ("Petitioner") filed Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in both of the above-captioned actions. By Report-Recommendation dated March 28, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Therèse Wiley Dancks recommended that both actions be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not be issued with regard to any of Petitioner's claims. (Dkt. No. 52.) On April 23, 2014, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 55.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; both actions are dismissed; and a certificate of appealability not be issued with regard to any of Petitioner's claims.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual background of Petitioner's conviction of July 31, 2000, for rape in the second degree (Indictment 99-112), and his conviction of and March 30, 2000, for sexual abuse in the first degree (Indictment 98-82). Rather, the Court will simply refer the parties to the relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation, which accurately recite that factual background. (Dkt. No. 52, at Part II.)

A. Petitioner's Claims

1. Petitioner's Claims in Lead Case No. 9:10-CV-1240

Petitioner filed his original Petition in the lead case on October 18, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) He filed an Amended Petition in that case on August 20, 2012, asserting the following six claims: (1) a claim that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Indictment 99-112 and his motion to vacate his judgment of conviction under Indictment 98-82 were improperly denied in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) a claim that the Government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments;

(3) a claim that the trial judge violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) by threatening Petitioner to accept the prior plea agreement, and defense counsel refused to provide legal advice causing Petitioner to enter an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) a claim that Judge Smith lacked jurisdiction to compel Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea under Indictment 99-112 as part of his plea in pending Indictment 98-82; (5) a claim that the Government's prosecutor improperly promised Petitioner that his post-release supervision under Indictment 99-112 would run concurrently with his probation violation; and (6) a claim that Petitioner received ineffective assistance from Attorneys Butler and Adinolfi in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Dkt. No. 35, at "Ground One" Through "Ground Six.")

2. Petitioner's Claims in Member Case No. 9:12-CV-0957

Petitioner filed his Petition in the member case on June 13, 2012, asserting the following four claims: (1) a claim that his guilty plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent because he was coerced to plead guilty by Attorney Butler; (2) a claim that Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel by Attorney Butler; (3) a claim that Judge Ames improperly denied Petitioner a hearing on his Section 440.10 motion; and (4) the Appellate Division overruled the Judge's denial of the Section 440.10 motion. (Dkt. No. 1, at "Ground One" Through "Ground Four.")

B. Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation

1. Recommendations as to Lead Case (No. ...


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.