McCloud v. Perez

Background

Cornell McCloud, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody under a New York state-court judgment. In 2012, New York State indicted him for second-degree burglary, third-degree grand larceny, and petit larceny. In September 2013, he pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree burglary and admitted stealing from his former employer’s apartment. As part of the plea, he waived his appellate rights. The state court sentenced him to twelve years in prison and five years of post-release supervision. The state appellate court affirmed his conviction, and New York’s highest court denied review.

McCloud’s federal petition raised two theories. First, he challenged state-court rulings, including rulings from an August 2013 suppression hearing, under the Fourth Amendment. He argued, among other things, that statements made after his arrest should have been excluded because they resulted from an unconstitutional arrest. Second, he argued that his sentence—described as two and a half times the minimum sentence allowed—was excessive and harsh.

Procedural History

The petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Fox, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the petition be denied in full. McCloud objected. Before the recommendation, McCloud filed three requests to amend his petition. Judge Fox denied the first request without prejudice because McCloud had not provided enough information to assess whether the request met Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Judge Fox denied the second request because amendment would have been futile. Judge Fox treated the third request as seeking reconsideration and denied it as untimely and because it did not satisfy the demanding standard under Rule 60.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which McCloud objected independently, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and interpreted his filings liberally because he was representing himself.

For the Fourth Amendment claim, the court identified two independent reasons for denying relief. First, the state court had rejected the claim on an adequate and independent state-law ground: McCloud’s waiver of his appellate rights in his guilty-plea agreement. A federal habeas court generally cannot review a federal claim rejected by a state court when the state-law ground independently supports the judgment and is firmly established and regularly followed. Second, the court held that McCloud had received a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment issue in state court, including a hearing. Under the governing Supreme Court rule, that opportunity prevents a state prisoner from obtaining federal habeas relief on the Fourth Amendment claim.

For the excessive-sentence claim, the court held that McCloud’s sentence was within the range permitted by New York law. The court stated that no federal constitutional issue is presented when a sentence falls within the range prescribed by state law. It determined that the twelve-year prison term for second-degree burglary and five years of post-release supervision were legally permitted under the cited New York statutes. The court therefore rejected the excessive-sentence claim.

The court also rejected McCloud’s objections concerning the handling of his amendment request and the absence of a reply or other filing. It found that Judge Fox had entered an order denying the third amendment request and that the petition was properly before the magistrate judge because McCloud had filed the petition and the respondent had filed an opposition. The court explained that representing himself did not exempt McCloud from the requirements governing federal habeas review.

Disposition

Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation and denied McCloud’s petition for habeas corpus. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McCloud permission to proceed without paying the filing fees for an appeal. The opinion states that a copy would be mailed to McCloud.

Classification Note

This order is classified as mixed because the court disposed of the Fourth Amendment claim on procedural habeas grounds while reaching the merits of the excessive-sentence claim.