Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2019

Slater v. Gonyea

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:16-cv-08540
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCriminalPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Slater v. Gonyea, Judge Karas adopted a report and recommendation and dismissed Slater’s federal petition challenging his conviction.

Who this affects

Jovan Slater’s federal challenge to his New York conviction was dismissed; the order also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

What happened

In Slater v. Gonyea, Jovan Slater challenged his New York conviction through a federal petition. He had pleaded guilty to selling a controlled substance and received a six-year prison sentence followed by three years of post-release supervision.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition in full. Slater did not object to that recommendation, and the opinion does not describe the recommendation’s underlying analysis.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and dismissed the petition. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Slater v. Gonyea · No. 7:16-cv-08540
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Nov. 6, 2019

Background

Jovan Slater, proceeding without a lawyer, pleaded guilty in Dutchess County Court to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under New York Penal Law § 220.39. The state court sentenced him as a second felony offender to six years of incarceration and three years of post-release supervision.

After a direct appeal, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the guilty plea. Slater then filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging a state-court conviction. The petition raised three grounds, most of which had also been pursued in state court.

Report and Recommendation

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. She recommended that the petition be denied in its entirety. Slater filed no objections.

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation. The opinion states that the court reviewed the recommendation and the petition and found no substantive error. It does not set out the recommendation’s underlying analysis or explain the specific reasons for rejecting Slater’s three grounds.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and ordered that the petition be dismissed. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Slater had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and directed the clerk to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.