Sampson v. Miller
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-05227
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sammy Sampson v. Sup’t Miller, Judge Liman dismissed Sampson’s habeas petition because he had not exhausted his state-court remedies.
Sammy Sampson’s federal challenge to his New York conviction and sentence was dismissed because he had not first presented the claim through available state procedures. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Sammy Sampson v. Sup’t Miller involved Sampson’s amended petition asking a federal court to review his New York conviction and prison sentence. He claimed his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to subpoena phone records relevant to his defense.
The court found that Sampson had not raised this claim on direct appeal or through a state post-conviction application. The court said New York’s post-conviction procedure might still be available for the claim.
Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court also denied Sampson permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Sampson v. Miller · No. 1:19-cv-05227
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 15, 2020
Background
Sammy Sampson filed an amended petition without a lawyer seeking federal review of his March 28, 2014 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. He had been sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the sentence, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.
Sampson asserted that his jury-trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena certain phone records that Sampson said were relevant to his defense. The court noted that the petition technically presented two grounds—ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation involving allegedly favorable evidence—but said both rested on the same factual allegation about the phone records.
Exhaustion requirement
Before a federal court may grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a state prisoner generally must first present the federal constitutional claim to the state courts, including the state’s highest court, and provide both the factual and legal bases for the claim. This requirement gives the state courts an opportunity to address and correct the alleged violation.
The court found that Sampson had not raised the phone-records claim on direct appeal or through a state post-conviction proceeding. The court cited New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 as a procedure that might still be available, particularly because the claim depended on matters not established in the trial record. The court also stated that there is no time limit for a § 440.10 motion challenging a conviction on constitutional grounds.
The court rejected Sampson’s explanations that the claim had not been preserved and that it was a federal constitutional claim that could not properly be raised on appeal. Because Sampson had not filed a state post-conviction motion, the court concluded that New York had not yet had the required opportunity to consider the claim.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sampson permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It directed the clerk to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Sampson.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.