Sankara v. Martuscellor
- Alison Nathan
- 1:18-cv-06308
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sankara v. Martuscellor, Judge Nathan denied Sankara’s petition challenging his conviction and his motion to change venue because his claims were barred or unavailable.
The order denies Ahmadou Sankara federal relief from his state conviction and denies his motion to change venue; it also prevents him from appealing without a certificate of appealability or permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Ahmadou Sankara v. Daniel F. Martuscellor, Jr., et al., Ahmadou Sankara asked a federal court to overturn his conviction for possessing forged bank cards. He challenged the evidence, alleged prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, and argued that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Fox’s recommendation. It found that some claims were not raised in state court and were procedurally barred, that the challenge to the weight of the evidence concerned state law and could not be considered in this proceeding, and that the Fourth Amendment issue had already received a full and fair opportunity for review in state court. The court also denied Sankara’s motion to change venue and vacate the conviction.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied both the petition and the motion to change venue. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, then directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Sankara v. Martuscellor · No. 1:18-cv-06308
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
Ahmadou Sankara was arrested in New York on March 6, 2015, for possessing forged bank cards. He was convicted on December 9, 2015, on three counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. On June 14, 2018, he filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his conviction. The opinion states that he represented himself when he filed the petition.
Sankara raised claims involving insufficient evidence, the weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. He later filed a motion labeled a motion to change venue, asking the court to grant his petition or change venue, vacate his conviction, and dismiss the indictment. Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying the petition. After Sankara objected, the district court reviewed the challenged recommendations independently.
Court’s Analysis
- Insufficient evidence: The court held that Sankara had not raised this claim in state court. It therefore treated the claim as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. Sankara did not show a legally sufficient reason to excuse the default, resulting prejudice, or actual innocence. The claim was barred.
- Weight of the evidence: The court agreed that this was a state-law claim and therefore was not legally available in a federal petition seeking review of the conviction.
- Prosecutorial misconduct: Sankara alleged that the prosecutor fabricated evidence and allowed him to be convicted despite his innocence. The state court had rejected this claim on an independent and adequate procedural ground. Because Sankara did not provide a basis to excuse the default, the court adopted the recommendation that this claim be dismissed.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel: Sankara alleged that his lawyers failed to investigate, impeach witnesses, preserve appellate issues, inform him of court rulings, exercise due diligence, and subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. The court agreed that each argument was either rejected by the state court on an independent and adequate procedural ground or had not been raised in state court. The claim was therefore barred.
- Fourth Amendment claim: Sankara argued that the arresting officer violated his constitutional rights. The court found that he had raised this issue in state court and had received a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. The court therefore denied federal relief on this claim.
Other Motion and Disposition
The court also denied Sankara’s September 23, 2020 motion to change venue, vacate the conviction, and dismiss the indictment. The court found that the motion did not identify a different venue and appeared to repeat the request for relief made in the petition.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Fox’s recommendations in full and denied the petition and the motion to change venue. It did not issue a certificate of appealability because Sankara had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.