Jeanty v. Martucello
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09540
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jeanty v. Martucello, Judge Swain denied Jeanty’s habeas petition without prejudice because his state appeal was still pending.
Kervin R. Jeanty’s federal challenge to his New York conviction was denied without prejudice because his state appeal was still pending; the respondents prevailed on the exhaustion issue.
What happened
In Jeanty v. Martucello, Kervin R. Jeanty challenged his October 24, 2022 New York conviction through a federal petition. He said his direct appeal in the state appellate court was still pending.
Federal law generally requires a person challenging a state conviction to finish available state appeals before asking a federal court for relief. Because Jeanty’s appeal had not finished, the court found that he had not met that requirement.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the petition without prejudice, meaning Jeanty may file another petition after fully exhausting his state remedies. The court also said it would not issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Jeanty v. Martucello · No. 1:24-cv-09540
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Kervin R. Jeanty, who was incarcerated when he filed the case and represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his October 24, 2022 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Orange County. He stated that he was convicted of criminal tampering with evidence and reckless endangerment in the second degree. The petition gives two possible sentencing dates: May 10, 2023, and May 31, 2023.
Jeanty stated that he had appealed to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, and that the direct appeal was still pending. The opinion also notes that public records showed he was released to parole supervision on January 9, 2025.
Exhaustion requirement
Section 2254 generally requires a person challenging a state conviction in federal court to exhaust available state remedies. Exhaustion means giving the state courts the first opportunity to review the claims. The court explained that Jeanty needed to wait for the Appellate Division to decide his appeal and, if necessary, seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Any applicable state collateral motions also would have to be fully pursued through the required state appellate procedures.
Because Jeanty’s direct appeal was pending, the court found that he had not fully exhausted his state remedies. It therefore treated the federal petition as prematurely filed and did not decide whether his conviction violated federal law.
Disposition
The court denied Jeanty’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The opinion states that, after fully exhausting his state remedies through the Court of Appeals, Jeanty may file a new federal petition.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.