Cooper v. Lapra

Background

Kazzim Cooper challenged his New York conviction and sentence through a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute governing state prisoners’ challenges to custody. After a bench trial, he was convicted on October 10, 2014, of first-degree assault and second-degree assault. He was later found incompetent to be sentenced, committed to the custody of the New York Commissioner of Mental Health, found competent, and sentenced on August 14, 2015, to concurrent six-year prison terms followed by post-release supervision.

Cooper filed a direct appeal in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, on July 26, 2018. That appeal remained pending when he filed his federal petition and when Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued her Report and Recommendation. The First Department had assigned new counsel and extended the time to perfect the appeal until at least mid-June 2020.

Claims and Exhaustion

Cooper argued that his conviction was invalid because he was incompetent when the state court determined his guilt and because the trial court could not retrospectively determine his competency during trial. He asserted that his commitment, sentencing, and incarceration violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy.

Respondent Michael Lapra argued that the petition should be dismissed because Cooper had not exhausted his state remedies. Exhaustion is the requirement that a state prisoner first fairly present federal claims to the appropriate state courts, giving those courts the opportunity to address them. Judge Wang concluded that Cooper’s claims remained unexhausted because his direct appeal was still pending. She also concluded that this was not a petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims that could potentially be stayed while state proceedings continued.

Cooper argued that the exhaustion requirement should be waived. Judge Wang rejected that argument, explaining that the authority Cooper relied on concerned claims that had already been procedurally defaulted in state court, while Cooper was still pursuing his state remedies.

District Court’s Review and Ruling

Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation. Judge Failla reviewed it for clear error and found none, then adopted it in its entirety.

The court ordered that Cooper’s petition be dismissed without prejudice to refiling once he had exhausted his claims in state court. The court therefore did not reach the merits of Cooper’s competency, constitutional, or double-jeopardy arguments. By adopting the Report in its entirety, the court also adopted the recommendation that a certificate of appealability not be issued because Cooper had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.