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.

Outman v. Superintendent

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 23, 2017

ALAN M. OUTMAN Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT, Five Points Correctional Facility Respondent.

         APPEARANCES:

          ALAN M. OUTMAN Petitioner, Pro Se, Five Points Correctional Facility

          HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney for Respondent Office of the Attorney General

         OF COUNSEL:

          ALYSON J. GILL Assistant Attorney General

          DECISION AND ORDER

          MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On June 20, 2016, petitioner Alan M. Outman ("petitioner") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with exhibits. Dkt. No. 1, Petition ("Pet."); Dkt. No. 1-1, Exhibits.[1]

         On December 14, 2012, petitioner was convicted after a plea of guilty in Broome County Court, of one count of murder in the first degree. Pet. at 1. As a result of her conviction, petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. Id.[2]

         Petitioner's guilty plea and conviction stems from petitioner's actions during the early morning hours of January 1, 2012, when she attempted to sexually abuse David Fillers. Petitioner then killed Fillers by choking and hitting him on the head with a rock several times, ostensibly to prevent him from calling the police. Fillers' body was discovered in a culvert where petitioner left him to die, and petitioner's DNA was recovered from sperm located on the victim's body.

         Petitioner raises the following grounds for habeas relief: (1) her guilty plea was involuntary, and (2) her trial counsels were ineffective because they coerced her into pleading guilty. Pet. at 3-5.[3]

         Respondent opposes the petition, arguing the habeas petition is untimely, partially unexhausted and without merit. Dkt. No. 17, Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition ("Resp. Mem."); Dkt. No. 18, State Court Records ("SR"). Petitioner filed a reply. Dkt. No. 22.[4]

         For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied as untimely, and dismissed.

         II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         A. Petitioner's Guilty Plea and Sentencing

         Petitioner was charged by a Broome County grand jury with one count of Murder in the First Degree (Penal Law § 125.27(1)(a)(vii)), two counts of Murder in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 125.25(1), (3)), and one count of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.65(1)). Dkt. No. 18-1, at ¶ 1-4.

         On September 5, 2012, petitioner, her attorney and the prosecution met for a Question and Answer session in contemplation of petitioner pleading guilty. Id. at SR 6-24. Prior to questioning petitioner, the prosecution informed her that "nothing that you say in these statements can be used against you." Id. at SR 6. The prosecution went on to outline the terms of the proposed plea agreement. Petitioner was offered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder in exchange for a prison term of twenty-five (25) years to life in prison. In addition, petitioner would waive all of her rights to have any pre-trial motions litigated as well as her rights to appeal. Id. at SR 6-7. Petitioner was then asked to give a full account of what happened the night of the victim's death. Id. at SR 7.

         Petitioner stated that she had known Fillers since middle school, and that she ran into him during the early morning hours on New Year's day in 2012, in downtown Binghamton. Id. at SR 7-8, 11. According to petitioner, Fillers was intoxicated. Petitioner offered to let Fillers ride in a cab she was sharing with a friend. Although Fillers asked the cab driver to take him home, the driver said he had other fares and Fillers would have to be dropped off at the Quality Inn where petitioner and her friends were staying. Id. at SR 11-14.

         After arriving at the hotel, Fillers and petitioner talked in the lobby for some time and then went back outside to wait for a cab to pick Fillers up. While walking outside, petitioner told Fillers that she was attracted to him. Id. at SR 14-15. Petitioner attempted to seduce Fillers, but he continued to say he was not interested. At one point, petitioner tried to kiss Fillers, but he pushed her away. As he pushed her away, petitioner stated that Fillers "slipped on the wet grass and fell backwards down the embankment" and "hit his head." Petitioner followed Fillers down the embankment and said he "seemed out of it." Id. at SR 15-16.

         At that point, petitioner admitted removing Fillers' clothing "with the intent of having sexual contact." Id. at SR 17. Petitioner then removed her own clothing and tried to put on a condom, but it did not fit. She then attempted to have anal intercourse with Fillers, but could not penetrate him. Petitioner stated that Fillers was still "out of it, " but he attempted to "move away or push back with his legs." Id. at SR ...


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.