Lema-Yaucan v. Melecio

Background

Holger Lema-Yaucan, the petitioner, renewed his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer provided without charge. The order states that he was proceeding without a lawyer in this Section 2254 habeas proceeding. His two claims were that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that his sentence was harsh and excessive.

Reasoning

The court had previously denied a request for counsel because the petitioner had not been granted permission to proceed without paying the applicable fees and had not shown that he met the standard for appointed counsel under Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). In the renewed motion, the petitioner stated that he had been granted that permission, but the order says that the renewed motion still failed to demonstrate that he satisfied the Hodge standard.

The petitioner argued that counsel should be appointed because the court should hold an evidentiary hearing concerning his habeas claims. The court cited Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which addresses appointing counsel when an evidentiary hearing is warranted and the petitioner qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted because both of the petitioner's claims had been presented to and decided by the state courts on direct appeal. The order also cited the general principle that federal review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record before the state court that decided the claim.

Disposition

Judge Andrew E. Krause denied the renewed motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the petitioner's two habeas claims. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to the self-represented petitioner at his address of record.