Wilson v. Lamanna
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-10714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
In Wilson v. Lamanna, Chief Judge Swain ordered amendment because the petition did not establish exhaustion of state remedies.
Marcus Wilson must file an amended habeas petition within 60 days and explain how he exhausted his claims in New York courts; Amy Lamanna remains the respondent, and the court did not yet decide the merits of Wilson’s claims.
What happened
Marcus Wilson, who was incarcerated, filed a self-represented petition challenging his 2017 New York conviction for two second-degree robbery counts. He raised claims involving double jeopardy, speedy trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence.
The court found that Wilson had not shown that he had completed the required state-court review. His state post-conviction motion was still pending, and the claims in his federal petition were not the claims already reviewed on direct appeal.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Wilson permission to file an amended petition within 60 days, requiring him to explain his claims and how he exhausted them in New York courts. The court did not decide whether his claims were valid; it also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Lamanna · No. 1:21-cv-10714
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 27, 2021
Background
Marcus Wilson filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to ask a federal court for relief from a conviction that allegedly violates federal law. The petition challenged Wilson’s 2017 conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County, for two counts of second-degree robbery. The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.
Wilson asserted that two mistrials violated the protection against being tried twice for the same offense, that his right to a speedy trial was violated, that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the double-jeopardy issue and challenge surveillance video, and that the evidence was legally insufficient. He also stated that a motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 was pending in state court. According to the petition, prison officials had taken his legal materials while he was in punitive segregation, hindering his efforts to file that motion.
Exhaustion requirement
Before a federal court ordinarily reviews a state prisoner’s habeas claims, the prisoner must give the state courts the first opportunity to consider the alleged constitutional violations. The federal court explained that this generally requires presenting the claims through New York’s appellate-review process, including seeking further review when required.
The court concluded that the petition did not establish exhaustion of the claims Wilson presented. The court identified the issues raised on direct appeal, but Wilson did not assert those issues in this federal petition. The court also found that Wilson appeared to rely on some claims raised in his still-pending state post-conviction motion. Those claims had not been fully exhausted because Wilson had not yet obtained a state-court decision and, if necessary, sought permission to appeal an adverse decision.
Order
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Wilson leave to file an amended petition within 60 days of the order. The amended petition must state the grounds for relief and describe the steps taken to exhaust each ground in New York courts. The court explained that an amended petition completely replaces the original petition. If the amended petition contains only unexhausted claims, the court said it would dismiss the petition without prejudice to refiling after exhaustion; if Wilson failed to comply with the order without showing good cause, the petition would be denied.
The order did not decide the merits of Wilson’s double-jeopardy, speedy-trial, ineffective-assistance, or evidence-sufficiency claims. The court also determined that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Wilson had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and it denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.