James v. Keyser

Background

Sharkey James, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court conviction. The petition raised five grounds: admission of evidence concerning uncharged prior crimes; a claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; denial of a motion to suppress a show-up identification; denial of a speedy-trial motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30; and sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender. James also sought immediate release based on his health and circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those COVID-19-related claims were being held in abeyance while he pursued state-court remedies.

James later asked to amend the petition to add an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim and to stay the federal case while he pursued a state-court writ of error coram nobis, a procedure for challenging certain errors after a conviction. That motion remained pending. James then applied for appointed counsel in the federal case. He also requested counsel for his state-court proceeding, but the court stated that it lacked jurisdiction over that proceeding.

Legal standard

The court explained that a person bringing a federal conviction challenge has no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Appointment is discretionary. Before considering factors such as the person’s ability to obtain a lawyer, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for factual investigation, and the need for cross-examination, the person must show that the claims have substance or a likelihood of success.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted only a preliminary review and found that James had not shown enough merit to justify appointing counsel. It stated that this preliminary assessment did not prevent further consideration of the petition or the motion to amend.

The court concluded that the claim concerning uncharged prior crimes was generally not reviewable in a federal conviction challenge because it concerned a state-law evidentiary ruling. It likewise concluded that the claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence presented a state-law issue that was not reviewable in this type of federal proceeding.

The court said the claim concerning suppression of the show-up identification appeared moot because James’s identity was not disputed at trial. According to the opinion, his trial lawyer conceded that James was present during the crime and argued instead that James did not act together with his cousin, who committed the crime.

The court also concluded that the speedy-trial claim under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30 was not reviewable in a federal conviction challenge. It reached the same conclusion about the claim that James was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender, explaining that application of New York’s sentencing-enhancement law was a state-law question.

Finally, the court found that James’s proposed ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim did not appear to show good cause for failing to exhaust it earlier in state court. James said he believed appellate counsel would raise certain issues and did not realize otherwise until the state appellate court affirmed his conviction. He also said the pandemic delayed his research before he filed his state-court application. The court noted that the conviction had been affirmed on March 12, 2019, several months before the pandemic, and found that James had not explained why he could not have filed the state-court application during that period.

Disposition

Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied James’s application for appointment of counsel. The order did not enter a final ruling on the federal petition, and it did not decide the pending motion to amend. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to James.