Carter v. Annucci
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-09019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Carter v. Annucci: Judge Netburn ordered Carter to choose between a stay for exhaustion or abandoning unexhausted claims.
David E. Carter, the self-represented petitioner, must choose how to proceed with his mixed federal habeas petition; Anthony Annucci is the respondent. The court did not decide the petition’s merits.
What happened
In Carter v. Annucci, David E. Carter, who is representing himself and is incarcerated, challenged his New York conviction in a federal petition. He raised claims about his lawyers, the trial evidence, a jury note, and his confinement conditions.
The court found that Carter had apparently completed the required state-court review for two claims but not for three others. Because the petition therefore contained both reviewed and unreviewed claims, the court treated it as a mixed petition.
The court directed Carter to tell it by June 7, 2023, whether he wanted the case stayed while he pursued the remaining state-court review or wanted the court to consider the two reviewed claims and treat the other three as abandoned. Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order; the opinion did not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Carter v. Annucci · No. 1:22-cv-09019
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 24, 2023
Background
David E. Carter filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The opinion states that Carter appeared without a lawyer and was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility.
The court interpreted Carter’s petition and later filings as raising five grounds:
- His trial and appellate lawyers provided ineffective assistance.
- The trial evidence was insufficient to support his first-degree robbery conviction because he said the complainant handed him the iPhone rather than Carter taking it from the complainant’s shirt pocket.
- The evidence was insufficient because Carter said he did not point a metal or bottle opener at the complainant after obtaining the iPhone and after the complainant demanded its return.
- The trial judge did not adequately disclose a jury note’s contents to the parties.
- Carter sought release because of medical conditions and an increased risk of COVID-19 infection, as well as alleged assaults by correctional officers and possibly gang-affiliated prisoners.
Exhaustion determination
Federal law generally requires a person challenging a state conviction through a federal habeas petition to first use available state-court remedies. The opinion explains that the court may deny a petition on its merits even if some claims have not been exhausted, but it did not do so here.
The court determined that the petition appeared to be “mixed”: Carter apparently exhausted his available state-court remedies for grounds 3 and 4, but apparently had not exhausted them for grounds 1, 2, and 5. A mixed petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims.
Options presented to Carter
The court explained that it could stay the case while Carter pursued state-court remedies; deny the petition without prejudice while he pursued complete exhaustion; consider only the exhausted claims if Carter agreed to abandon the unexhausted claims; or deny the entire petition on the merits. The court focused on two options because of Carter’s status as a self-represented litigant:
- stay the case while Carter pursued state-court remedies for grounds 1, 2, and 5; or - with Carter’s consent, consider grounds 3 and 4 on their merits and treat grounds 1, 2, and 5 as abandoned.
Disposition
The court directed Carter to notify it in writing by June 7, 2023, which option he wanted. The order did not grant or deny habeas relief and did not decide whether any claim was legally valid. The court also stated that, if it stayed the case, it would not decide the merits until the relevant state-court review had occurred.
Judge
The order was signed by Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.