Vilsaint v. Annucci

Background

Christopher Vilsaint was convicted after a jury trial in New York State Supreme Court, Rockland County, of attempted second-degree murder and attempted first-degree assault. He was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.

Vilsaint later filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate his conviction. While that motion was pending, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to review whether the custody violates federal law or the Constitution. The federal court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy.

Claims and Motion to Dismiss

Vilsaint’s federal petition included claims that the State violated his right to a fair trial, withheld unspecified evidence required under Brady, and provided ineffective assistance through appellate counsel. The respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that Vilsaint had not exhausted his claims in state court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The respondent also argued that the failure to exhaust should not be excused under Barker v. Wingo.

Vilsaint did not respond to the motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended granting the motion and dismissing the petition without prejudice. No party filed objections to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found none and adopted the recommendation in full.

The court agreed that Vilsaint’s fair-trial claim was an unexhausted claim based on the trial record. It also agreed that his claim concerning unspecified Brady material was unexhausted, whether based on the trial record or information outside that record. His ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim was unexhausted because he had not sought a writ of error coram nobis before filing the federal petition. The court further agreed that the Barker v. Wingo factors favored the State, so Vilsaint’s failure to exhaust should not be excused.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition without prejudice. The court also held that a certificate of appealability would not issue because reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Vilsaint had failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, mail Vilsaint a copy of the order, and close the case.