Ocasio v. United States
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-09733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ocasio v. United States, Judge Cronan ordered appointed lawyer Florian Miedel to respond about Ronald Ocasio’s request for counsel in his pending habeas case.
Ronald Ocasio, who requested new counsel, and Florian Miedel, who was ordered to respond about the possible claims and the scope of his prior appointment.
What happened
Ocasio v. United States concerns Ronald Ocasio’s successive petition asking the court to provide relief from his conviction under a federal law called Section 2255. The court had appointed Florian Miedel to represent Ocasio on a claim involving potentially undisclosed evidence, but Miedel later asked to withdraw.
Ocasio then requested new counsel, saying that Miedel’s withdrawal was not a mutual decision. Ocasio also said Miedel believed he had a possible claim involving information withheld from the defense or newly discovered evidence, but believed Ocasio should pursue it without a lawyer.
The court ordered Miedel to respond by September 22, 2021, addressing whether Ocasio had a viable claim and whether pursuing it was within Miedel’s appointment. Judge Cronan did not decide the claim’s merits or grant Ocasio new counsel in this order.
The detailed version
- Ocasio v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-09733
- John Cronan
- Sept. 17, 2021
Background
Ronald Ocasio had a successive petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 pending before the court. A Section 2255 petition is a request by a federal criminal defendant to challenge the legality of the conviction or sentence. The court had directed that counsel be appointed to represent Ocasio in connection with a Brady claim. Brady claims generally concern evidence allegedly withheld from the defense, but this order did not decide whether Ocasio had such a claim.
On February 25, 2021, the court appointed Florian Miedel, Esq. On August 24, Miedel asked to be relieved, stating that, after discussions with Ocasio, they had decided Miedel would not file a memorandum supporting the Brady claim. Miedel’s letter said Ocasio wished to pursue the claim without a lawyer. The court granted Miedel’s request on August 30 and extended Ocasio’s deadline for a supplemental submission to October 29, 2021.
Ocasio’s Request
In a September 1 letter filed September 7, Ocasio again requested new counsel. He stated that Miedel’s request to withdraw was not a mutual decision. Ocasio said Miedel believed he had a newly discovered evidence or Giglio claim, but believed Ocasio should pursue that matter without counsel. Ocasio suggested that Miedel may have misunderstood whether such a claim was within the scope of Miedel’s appointment.
Court’s Order
The court ordered Miedel to respond to Ocasio’s letter by September 22, 2021. Miedel was directed to address whether he believed Ocasio had a viable Giglio claim or newly discovered-evidence claim and, if so, whether pursuing that argument fell within the scope of his prior appointment. The court allowed Miedel to submit the response privately under seal, with a copy to Ocasio, to the extent the response would disclose litigation strategy or attorney-client communications that had not otherwise been waived.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Ocasio, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The order did not rule on the merits of Ocasio’s habeas petition, determine whether any Brady or Giglio claim was viable, or grant or deny his request for new counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.