Gabbidon v. Lee

Background

Craig E. Gabbidon was convicted after pleading guilty in Dutchess County Court to first-degree criminal sexual act, described in the opinion as a Class B violent felony under New York law. On December 23, 2014, he was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment and 10 years of post-release supervision.

Gabbidon filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus while proceeding without a lawyer. He raised four groups of claims: (1) his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the trial court allegedly misstated whether consecutive sentences could be imposed after a trial and conviction on multiple counts; (2) his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the post-release-supervision term exceeded what the trial court allegedly told him; (3) his trial lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to those alleged sentencing misstatements; and (4) his appeals lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for not raising the post-release-supervision issue and for other alleged deficiencies in handling the appeal.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended denying the petition. She concluded that both claims based directly on the trial court’s alleged sentencing misstatements were procedurally barred and lacked merit. She also concluded that the trial-counsel claim concerning the consecutive-sentence statement lacked merit; that the trial-counsel claim concerning post-release supervision was procedurally barred and lacked merit; and that the appellate-counsel claim lacked merit.

Gabbidon did not object to the report and recommendation. The district court explained that it could adopt portions without a specific objection unless clear error appeared, and that it would read a self-represented litigant’s papers liberally. The court reviewed the report, the underlying record, and the applicable federal habeas standards and found no error, clear or otherwise.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation as its own opinion and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It instructed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case. The court also ruled that Gabbidon had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Effect

The federal habeas petition was denied, and the district court case was closed. The opinion does not state that the court vacated or altered Gabbidon’s state conviction or sentence.