Swinson v. Suares
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-02696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Swinson v. Suares, Judge Stanton denied Swinson’s petition because he was not held under the conviction he challenged.
Randy E. Swinson’s petition was denied because the court found that he was not in custody under the 2013 conviction he challenged. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
What happened
Swinson v. Suares concerned Randy E. Swinson’s federal petition challenging his 2013 New York conviction for robbery, criminal mischief, and assault. He asked the court to reverse the convictions and release him.
The court found that Swinson was being held on bail because of a 2019 arrest, not under the 2013 conviction he challenged. It therefore concluded that it had no authority to consider his petition.
Judge Stanton denied the petition and said no certificate allowing an appeal would issue because Swinson had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied.
The detailed version
- Swinson v. Suares · No. 1:20-cv-02696
- Louis Stanton
- Apr. 14, 2020
Background
Randy E. Swinson, who was detained at the Manhattan Detention Complex and represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging an April 25, 2013 conviction in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. The petition identified convictions for second-degree robbery, criminal mischief, and third-degree assault. Swinson sought reversal and dismissal of the robbery and criminal-mischief counts and his release. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court reviewed New York City Department of Correction records stating that Swinson was then detained because of a June 2, 2019 arrest on one count of first-degree criminal contempt and two counts of aggravated family offense. The records stated that he was being held on bail or bond and that the New York State Division of Parole had issued several warrants.
Court’s Analysis
A federal court may consider a state-prisoner petition under § 2254 only if the petitioner is in custody in violation of federal law and is in custody under the state conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. The court explained that Swinson was being held on bail because of the 2019 arrest, rather than under the 2013 conviction. Because he was not in custody pursuant to the judgment he attacked, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to decide the petition.
Disposition
The court denied the § 2254 petition. It 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. The order directed that a copy be mailed to Swinson and that service be noted on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.