Rispers v. Capra
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-04604
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rispers v. Capra, Judge Briccetti denied Marc Rispers’s petition challenging his conviction after adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Marc Rispers’s federal petition was denied; the opinion also states that no certificate of appealability would issue and that permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Rispers v. Capra, Marc Rispers, who represented himself, asked the federal court to overturn or otherwise provide relief from his state-court conviction for robbery-related crimes. He was sentenced principally to twenty years in prison as a second violent felony offender.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. The recommendation found that Rispers had not shown that prosecutors failed to disclose favorable evidence in violation of the constitutional rule in Brady v. Maryland, and that his sentencing claim could not be considered in this type of federal petition.
Rispers did not object to the recommendation. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and denied the petition. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Rispers v. Capra · No. 7:18-cv-04604
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 21, 2021
Background
Marc Rispers filed a petition for federal relief challenging his state-court conviction. The opinion states that a jury in Supreme Court, Westchester County, convicted him of robbery in the first degree related crimes. He was sentenced principally to twenty years’ imprisonment as a second violent felony offender. Rispers proceeded without a lawyer.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison recommended denying the petition in its entirety. The recommendation addressed two issues: whether the prosecution intentionally or inadvertently failed to disclose favorable evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, and whether Rispers’s sentencing claim could be considered in a federal petition of this kind. Judge Davison concluded that Rispers had not demonstrated a Brady violation and that the sentencing claim was not cognizable on federal review.
District Court’s Action
Rispers did not object to the Report and Recommendation. The district court reviewed it and the underlying record and found no error, including no clear error. The court therefore adopted the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court and denied the petition.
The court ordered the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Rispers had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.