Colon v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-02263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Colon v. City of New York, Judge Schofield dismissed Colon’s federal petition challenging his conviction and sentence.
Serafin Colon’s federal challenge to his state convictions was dismissed; the respondents were the City of New York and the Attorney General of the State of New York.
What happened
In Colon v. The City of New York, Serafin Colon challenged his state convictions for attempted first-degree assault and third-degree weapon possession. He argued that the prosecutor allowed false testimony, that a voicemail and text messages made his trial unfair, and that his sentence was excessive.
The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation. It dismissed Colon’s claims about the stabbing video and the victim’s injuries because he had not first presented them to the state courts. It rejected his other claims, finding no proof that the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony, no unfairness from admitting the voicemail and text messages, and no federal issue because Colon did not claim that his sentence exceeded the range allowed by state law.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield overruled Colon’s objections, adopted the recommendation in full, and dismissed the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal based on the absence of a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
The detailed version
- Colon v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02263
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 1, 2021
Background
Serafin Colon filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure allowing a person in state custody to challenge a state conviction on federal constitutional or federal-law grounds. He challenged convictions for attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree arising from the stabbing of Bisnelly Polanco.
At trial, the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, text messages, a voicemail Colon left for Polanco, and a video of the stabbing. Colon argued that Polanco gave false testimony about their relationship and that the prosecutor failed to correct it. He also argued that admitting an allegedly inaudible voicemail and prejudicial text messages denied him a fair trial, and that his sentence was excessive.
Magistrate judge’s recommendation and review
The case was referred to Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox, who recommended dismissing the petition. The recommendation treated Colon’s claims concerning the stabbing video and Polanco’s testimony about the extent of her injuries as unexhausted, meaning Colon had not first presented those claims through the available state-court process. It rejected the due-process claim, the fair-trial claim, and the excessive-sentence claim.
Colon objected, but the district court found that his objections largely repeated his earlier arguments. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning whether the recommendation was plainly mistaken, rather than conducting a fresh review of each issue.
Court’s analysis
The court adopted the recommendation concerning the unexhausted claims and dismissed the claims based on the video and Polanco’s testimony about her injuries.
On the due-process claim, the court concluded that Colon had not shown that the prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony. The state court had found that the prosecutor lacked actual evidence during trial that Polanco was testifying falsely, and that evidence apart from Polanco’s testimony was sufficient to convict Colon. The district court found no basis to set aside the conviction on that ground.
On the fair-trial claim, the court upheld the recommendation that Colon had not shown that the state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A technician had enhanced the voicemail, which revealed Colon saying, “Don’t let me catch you.” The court also relied on the surveillance video, eyewitness testimony, and Colon’s admission to a friend that he had committed the stabbing, concluding that the jury had enough evidence apart from the voicemail to find him guilty.
On the excessive-sentence claim, the court adopted the finding that Colon had not established a federal constitutional violation. Colon did not claim that his sentence fell outside the range prescribed by state law, and the court stated that a sentence within that range did not present a federal constitutional issue on the facts before it.
Disposition
Judge Schofield overruled Colon’s objections, adopted Judge Fox’s report in full, and dismissed the petition. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and mail Colon a copy of the opinion. It also held that Colon had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and therefore did not issue a certificate of appealability.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.