Leyva v. United States
- Paul Crotty
- 1:23-cv-01415
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Leyva v. United States, Judge Crotty denied Romana Leyva’s request to extend the deadline for challenging her conviction while her direct appeal remained pending.
Romana Leyva’s request for additional time to file a federal post-conviction motion was denied; the order also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without prepaying court fees.
What happened
Romana Leyva pleaded guilty to two conspiracy offenses and received a 100-month prison sentence, supervised release, forfeiture, and restitution. While incarcerated, she asked for more time to file a motion challenging her conviction, citing lockdowns and quarantines related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court said it could not consider the timing of a post-conviction motion before Leyva actually filed one. Her request did not state the reasons she wanted to challenge her judgment, so the court could not treat it as that motion. The court also said that filing such a motion was premature because her direct appeal was still pending.
Judge Paul A. Crotty denied the request for an extension. He also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees.
The detailed version
- Leyva v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-01415
- Paul Crotty
- Mar. 15, 2023
Background
Romana Leyva pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to intentionally damage a protected computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The court sentenced her to 100 months in prison, three years of supervised release, forfeiture of $4,679,586.93, and restitution of $2,707,882.91. She filed a direct appeal, which remained pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Leyva asked the district court for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A Section 2255 motion is a federal prisoner’s procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence on specified legal grounds. Leyva stated that lockdowns and quarantine periods at the prison because of the COVID-19 pandemic had prevented her from completing the motion.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that it generally cannot decide whether a Section 2255 motion was filed on time unless an actual Section 2255 motion has been filed. Although a court may sometimes treat a request for an extension as the underlying motion, Leyva’s application did not identify the grounds on which she challenged her judgment. The court therefore could not treat the application as a Section 2255 motion.
The court also explained that a defendant generally should pursue a direct appeal before seeking relief under Section 2255. Although a pending appeal does not automatically prevent a district court from considering a Section 2255 motion, such review is generally inappropriate while the appeal is pending because the appeal could affect or make unnecessary the district court’s work. Because Leyva’s direct appeal was still pending, the court found a Section 2255 motion premature.
Ruling
The court denied Leyva’s application for an extension of time. It stated that it could not extend the deadline unless a Section 2255 motion had been filed, and that Leyva’s application lacked substantive grounds for relief and could not be treated as such a motion. The court also stated that a Section 2255 motion was premature because the direct appeal remained pending.
The court further ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the application did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.