Navigation

Archive | habeas corpus

Friday, July 7th, 2023

Statute of limitations for habeas corpus claims requires a claim-by-claim approach.

In Clemente v. Lee, No. 21-279-pr (2d Cir. July 5, 2023) (Pooler, Sack, and Park), the Circuit, deciding an issue of first impression for this Court, held that the statute of limitations for a habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), requires a claim-by-claim approach — meaning that each claim raised in the petition must be analyzed separately for timeliness. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the statute of limitations requires only that at least one claim in the petition be timely.

Clemente, the petitioner, was convicted in New York State of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon. He ultimately filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of New York. The district court dismissed some of the claims asserted in the petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

The Second Circuit affirmed. Joining all …

Posted by
Categories: habeas corpus, statute of limitations

Posted By
Categories: habeas corpus, statute of limitations

Continue Reading
Monday, July 12th, 2021

The Second Circuit holds that the concurrent sentence doctrine applies when a defendant collaterally challenges the legality of a conviction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and declines to review the § 2255 appeal. Kassir v. United States, No. 19-1477, __F.3d__ (2d Cir. July 9, 2021) (C.J.J. Jacobs, Nardini).

The Circuit applies the “discretionary” concurrent sentence doctrine because the petitioner’s 2255 motion attacked only a single count of conviction, that resulted in a 20-year sentence that is concurrent to “two terms of life in prison” on counts unchallenged. The Circuit said it was exercising its discretion “to decline” to review Mr.  Kassir’s 2255 appeal (challenging the validity of a conviction) because “[e]ven  if  his challenge were successful, our decision would  not shorten the time Kassir must remain in custody because he remains subject to two concurrent life sentences[.]” Op. at 2-3.

The Circuit holds, however, that  if, in the future, the petitioner is able to challenge his two life sentences, he may renew his 2255 challenge to the concurrent 20-year sentence. Op at 25-27.

I. The Circuit avoids deciding (i) whether Dimaya and Davis established a new rule of constitutional law, retroactive to cases on collateral review; or …

Posted by
Categories: 2255, concurrent sentence doctrine, Davis, Dimaya, habeas corpus, harmless error, Johnson

Posted By
Categories: 2255, concurrent sentence doctrine, Davis, Dimaya, habeas corpus, harmless error, Johnson

Continue Reading
Friday, June 11th, 2021

Circuit Affirms Grant of Habeas Relief Based on Clear Confrontation Clause Violation.

In Garlick v. Lee, No. 20-1796, the Circuit (Wesley, Sullivan, and Menashi) upheld Chief Judge Colleen McMahon’s decision to grant a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Garlick was convicted in state court of first-degree manslaughter. At trial, an autopsy report—prepared at the request of law enforcement during an active homicide investigation—was admitted into evidence over Garlick’s objection through a witness who had not participated in the autopsy or the preparation of the autopsy report. On appeal, the First Department affirmed the conviction, concluding that Garlick’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated because the autopsy report did not link the commission of the crime to Garlick and therefore was not “testimonial.”

On collateral review, the district court granted Garlick’s § 2254 petition because the First Department’s decision was an “unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”

The Second Circuit affirmed. Judge Menashi’s opinion …

Posted by
Categories: habeas corpus, manslaughter

Posted By
Categories: habeas corpus, manslaughter

Continue Reading
Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020

Supreme Court Holds that a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment Under Civil Rule 59(e) Is Not a Second or Successive Habeas Petition.

In Bannister v. Davis, No. 18-6943 (June 1, 2020), the Supreme Court today held that a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is not a “second or successive” petition for habeas corpus purposes. The vote was 7–2, with only Justices Alito and Thomas dissenting.

Justice Kagan’s opinion for the Court begins this way:

A state prisoner is entitled to one fair opportunity to seek federal habeas relief from his conviction. But he may not usually make a “second or successive habeas corpus application.” 28 U.S.C. §2244(b). The question here is whether a motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment qualifies as such a successive petition. We hold it does not. A Rule 59(e) motion is instead part and parcel of the first habeas proceeding.

And the Court’s opinion concludes as follows:

Our …

Posted by
Categories: habeas corpus

Posted By
Categories: habeas corpus

Continue Reading