Jordan v. Thompson
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-03928
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jordan v. Thompson, Judge Daniels denied Tony Jordan’s habeas petition, finding no error in his conviction, trial proceedings, or counsel.
Tony Jordan’s federal challenge to his New York weapons-possession conviction and sentence was denied; James Thompson, the respondent, prevailed in this proceeding.
What happened
In Jordan v. Thompson, Tony Jordan asked the federal court to set aside his 2014 weapons-possession conviction and seven-year sentence. A jury had convicted him after police found two handguns, his birth certificate, and prison-release papers in a bag in a livery cab.
Jordan argued that the evidence was insufficient, the prosecutor made improper statements, the trial court wrongly denied his request to represent himself, and his lawyer was ineffective. He also challenged the search of the cab and the admission of evidence connected to the guns.
Judge George B. Daniels denied the habeas petition after reviewing Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s recommendation for clear error. The court held that one claim was unexhausted, another was barred because of an independent state-law ruling, and the remaining claims failed; it also concluded that the challenged claims lacked merit where addressed.
The detailed version
- Jordan v. Thompson · No. 1:19-cv-03928
- George Daniels
- July 27, 2022
Background
Tony Jordan, proceeding without a lawyer, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his 2014 New York weapons-possession conviction and seven-year sentence. Before trial, the state court held a hearing on whether the search of the livery cab violated the Fourth Amendment. The court found no violation after considering the time of night, the cab’s erratic driving, and a nearby shooting. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that DNA from the guns matched or was consistent with Jordan’s DNA, and a witness testified that the bag containing the guns belonged to him. A jury convicted Jordan of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and one count of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
Jordan later moved to vacate the judgment in state court, including on ineffective-assistance grounds. The state trial court denied that motion, and the opinion states that he did not seek permission to appeal that denial. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction on January 2, 2018. Jordan then filed this federal habeas petition, which largely repeated arguments from his direct appeal.
Magistrate judge’s recommendation and review
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended denying the petition. The report was not timely served on Jordan, so the magistrate judge later mailed it to him and gave him an additional 14 days to object. No objections were filed. Judge Daniels therefore reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake after reviewing the record as a whole.
Claims and analysis
Jordan raised four principal claims:
1. Insufficient evidence. The court agreed that Jordan had not presented this claim to the state appellate court in a way likely to alert that court to its federal constitutional nature. The claim was therefore unexhausted. The court nevertheless stated that the evidence—including Officer Sepulveda’s testimony, the DNA evidence, and other factual and legal considerations—was legally sufficient on the merits.
2. Prosecutorial misconduct. The Appellate Division had ruled that Jordan failed to preserve these claims under independent state-law grounds. The federal court held that this barred federal habeas review. It also agreed with the alternative state-court ruling that the claims failed on the merits under the federal standard governing habeas review of state-court decisions.
3. Self-representation. The court concluded that the trial court did not improperly deny Jordan’s request to represent himself. Jordan had been given time to explain his complaints and reasons for wanting to proceed without counsel, but his request appeared to be a vague statement made during an emotional outburst and he did not renew it. The state appellate court could therefore reasonably find that he abandoned the request.
4. Ineffective assistance of counsel. Applying the two-part standard from Strickland v. Washington and state law, the court found that counsel was constitutionally adequate. Counsel participated in pretrial hearings, made legal arguments, helped limit the prosecution’s cross-examination, took part in plea negotiations, questioned prospective jurors, argued to the jury, and actively represented Jordan.
Disposition
Judge Daniels adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation after clear-error review and denied Jordan’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions accordingly. The opinion does not state that the petition was dismissed with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.