Morris v. Wolcott
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-00052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Morris v. Wolcott, Judge Engelmayer denied Keith Morris’s habeas petition after finding no clear error in the recommended rejection of his claims.
Keith Morris’s federal habeas petition was denied, the case was closed, and he was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Morris v. Wolcott, Keith Morris, representing himself, asked the federal court to overturn his New York conviction for second-degree assault. He argued that the evidence was insufficient and that his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the petition. It concluded that Morris’s challenge to the weight of the evidence could not be considered in a federal habeas case, and that his evidence-sufficiency claim was blocked because the state appellate court had found it was not properly preserved at trial. The court also found that his objection about mental health at sentencing raised a new issue that had not been presented in the petition.
Judge Engelmayer denied the petition, directed the Clerk to close the case, declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, and denied Morris permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Morris v. Wolcott · No. 1:22-cv-00052
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 27, 2023
Background
Keith Morris, proceeding without a lawyer, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a jury in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan convicted him of second-degree assault under New York Penal Law § 120.05(12). He raised two grounds: that the evidence was legally insufficient and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and that his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended denying the petition. The district court initially adopted that recommendation after finding no clear error because neither party had timely objected. The court later extended Morris’s objection deadline, received his objection, and considered it in this opinion.
Morris’s Objections
Morris first argued that the evidence did not establish his intent to commit the assault. The court found that this objection merely repeated his original argument, so it reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review. The court found no clear error. It relied on the recommendation’s conclusions that a claim that a verdict was against the weight of the evidence is not available in federal habeas review, and that Morris’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim was procedurally barred because the state appellate court declined to review the intent issue after finding it had not been adequately preserved at trial.
Morris next argued that the trial court should have considered his mental health at sentencing. The court noted that this issue had not been raised in the habeas petition and had not been addressed in the recommendation. Because the objection was not specifically directed at a finding in the recommendation, it did not require fresh review. The court again found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Engelmayer denied the Petition. The court directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, close the case, and mail Morris a copy of the decision. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.