Martinez v. Tomes

Background

Miguel Martinez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his New York state conviction and sentence. A jury in New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, found him guilty on February 25, 2016, of first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, fourth-degree grand larceny, second-degree menacing, and third-degree criminal possession. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

Martinez filed the federal petition on August 9, 2019. The court later referred it to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison. While the respondent opposed the petition, Martinez filed a state-court motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 to vacate the judgment. He also asked to stay, or pause, the federal case while that motion was pending. Judge Davison granted the stay and ordered Martinez to move within 30 days after the state motion was resolved to lift the stay and reopen the federal case.

The County Court denied the § 440.10 motion on September 24, 2021. On September 30, 2022, Judge Davison ordered Martinez to explain why the federal petition should not be dismissed because he had not timely asked to lift the stay. Martinez did not respond.

Report and Recommendation

On November 18, 2022, Judge Davison recommended dismissing the petition in its entirety as time-barred, meaning filed after the applicable deadline. The recommendation advised Martinez that objections were due within the specified period and that failing to object could waive appellate rights. Martinez filed no objections.

Because no objections were filed, Judge Karas reviewed the recommendation for clear error, which asks whether the record shows an obvious mistake. The opinion states that the court reviewed the petition and recommendation and found no substantive error, clear or otherwise.

Disposition

Judge Karas adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the petition. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Martinez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Martinez and close the case.

The opinion states that Martinez was initially incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility and was later incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. It substituted the Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility as the respondent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).