Black v. Johnson
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-08725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Black v. Johnson, Judge Halpern denied Black’s habeas petition after adopting a report recommending denial because Black filed no objections.
Marcus Black’s federal challenge to his New York convictions and sentences was denied, and the case was closed. Respondent J. Johnson was the opposing party.
What happened
In Black v. Johnson, Marcus Black challenged his New York convictions and sentences in a federal petition. He argued that police should not have been allowed to use statements he made, that his sentence was too severe, and that the evidence did not support his burglary conviction.
Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended denying the petition. Black asked for more time to object, but he did not file objections by the extended deadline. He instead filed a notice of appeal concerning an order that had already been canceled.
Judge Philip M. Halpern found no clear error in the recommendation and adopted it in full, so the court denied the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Black v. Johnson · No. 7:20-cv-08725
- Philip Halpern
- July 2, 2024
Background
A New York jury convicted Marcus Black of second-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property. He was initially sentenced to 25 years to life for burglary, consecutive to 2 to 4 years for possessing stolen property. The New York Appellate Division later reduced the burglary sentence to 20 years to life and made the sentences concurrent. The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.
Black then filed a federal petition challenging his convictions and sentences. He raised three arguments: his statements to police should have been suppressed, his sentence was excessive, and the evidence was insufficient to support his burglary conviction.
Report and Recommendation
The court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. On March 14, 2024, Judge McCarthy issued a report and recommendation advising that the petition be denied. The report explained that the parties had a limited time to file written objections and warned that failing to object could affect later appellate review.
The district court initially adopted the recommendation, but later canceled that order after Black requested more time to object. The court extended the deadline to May 11, 2024. Black did not file objections. He filed a notice of appeal concerning the canceled adoption order instead. The court determined that the appeal of a canceled order was plainly frivolous and therefore did not prevent the district court from acting on the recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern reviewed the recommendation for clear error because Black had not filed objections. The court found no clear error in Judge McCarthy’s analysis and adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The petition was DENIED.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Black had failed to make the required substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Black and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.