Arroyo v. Fields

Background

Luis Arroyo was convicted in New York state court of second-degree assault, second-degree burglary, second-degree attempted murder, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He received a 20-year prison sentence, but the trial court did not state the specific length of post-release supervision.

After a New York decision held that the term of post-release supervision had to be stated orally at sentencing, Arroyo was resentenced. The parties stipulated that New York law required five years of post-release supervision, and the trial court imposed that term while leaving the 20-year prison sentence unchanged.

Arroyo had previously filed a federal petition challenging his conviction and sentence, and the court denied that petition on the merits. In 2017, he filed this later petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Among other claims, he alleged that the prosecution had failed to disclose that the victim had regained mobility.

Report and Recommendation

A magistrate judge recommended that the later petition was not “second or successive” because the resentencing might have created a new judgment. The recommendation also concluded that the petition should be dismissed as untimely under the federal statute of limitations.

The respondent objected to the finding that the petition was not second or successive. The respondent argued that the district court lacked authority to decide whether the petition was untimely and instead had to transfer the petition to the Second Circuit.

Court’s Analysis

A person seeking to file a second or successive federal habeas petition must first obtain authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals. If such a petition is filed in the district court without that authorization, the district court must transfer it because it lacks authority to consider the petition’s merits.

The court explained that a later petition is generally not second or successive if a new judgment intervened between the earlier and later petitions. But an amendment that merely corrects a clerical or typographical error does not create a new judgment; the change must be substantive.

The court rejected the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the resentencing could have resulted in a shorter term of post-release supervision. It determined that the statutory exception allowing a term shorter than five years did not apply because Arroyo’s sentence was imposed under the provision governing second violent felony offenders, rather than the provisions covered by that exception. The court also concluded that no other exception applied.

Because the trial court had no choice but to impose five years of post-release supervision, the resentencing did not involve a substantive sentencing decision. It corrected only the original court’s failure to state the specific term of years. Therefore, the resentencing did not create a new judgment, and Arroyo’s later petition was second or successive.

Disposition

The court declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation and ordered that Arroyo’s § 2254 petition be transferred to the Second Circuit. Because the petition was second or successive, the district court did not examine the merits of Arroyo’s claims. The court directed the clerk to transfer the petition, mail the order to the pro se petitioner, and close the case.