Clarke v. Griffin
- Nelson Roman
- 7:13-cv-04812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Clarke v. Griffin, Judge Román denied Desroy Clarke’s habeas petition, finding no clear error in rejecting his claims.
Desroy Clarke’s federal challenge to his New York criminal convictions was denied; the respondent, T. Griffin, prevailed in this proceeding.
What happened
In Clarke v. Griffin, Desroy Clarke asked the federal court to overturn his New York convictions for rape, criminal sexual act, and unlawful imprisonment. He argued, among other things, that his lawyer was ineffective and that the trial court gave an improper jury instruction.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommended decision because Clarke filed no objections despite receiving extensions. It found no clear error and agreed that the state court reasonably concluded Clarke had effective legal representation. The court also found his other grounds for relief, including the challenge to the jury instruction, baseless.
Judge Nelson S. Román adopted the recommendation in full and denied the petition. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case, declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, and denied payment-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Clarke v. Griffin · No. 7:13-cv-04812
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
Desroy Clarke, representing himself, petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion states that, after a jury trial and a retrial, Clarke was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree criminal sexual act, and unlawful imprisonment. He received two 15-year prison sentences followed by five years of supervised release for the rape and criminal-sexual-act convictions, plus a one-year term of incarceration for unlawful imprisonment.
Clarke challenged his convictions in state court, including on the ground that his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance. The state appellate court held that, considering the record as a whole, Clarke had received effective assistance. The state’s highest court denied his request for further review. Clarke then filed the federal petition.
Report and recommendation
Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy issued a report and recommendation on May 11, 2017, recommending that the petition be denied. Clarke received several extensions but filed no objections. When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record rather than conducting a full reconsideration of the disputed issues.
Court’s analysis
The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation. It concluded that Clarke’s ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit because the state appellate court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not unreasonably apply, the federal legal standard from Strickland v. Washington. The court also rejected Clarke’s other asserted grounds for relief, including his claim that the trial court failed to give a proper Allen charge, which is an instruction to a jury having difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Román adopted Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s report and recommendation in its entirety and denied the habeas petition. The clerk was directed to enter judgment, close the case, and send Clarke a copy of the order. The court also determined that Clarke had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Clarke payment-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.