Smickle v. Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:23-cv-01634
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smickle v. Superintendent, Judge Aaron stayed the federal petition while Smickle exhausts an ineffective-assistance claim in state court.
Randel Smickle and the respondent in Smickle’s federal petition; the case is paused while Smickle pursues his state-court ineffective-assistance claim.
What happened
In Smickle v. Superintendent, Randel Smickle asked to pause his federal case while a New York state court considers his motion challenging his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The request was unopposed.
The court had previously asked Smickle, who was representing himself, to explain why he filed the federal petition before completing the required state-court process. Smickle submitted the requested explanation on July 14, 2023.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron found that Smickle’s reasonable confusion about the proper procedure was a sufficient reason for the delay. The court ordered the case stayed while he completes the state process and required status updates from Smickle and the respondent.
The detailed version
- Smickle v. Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility · No. 1:23-cv-01634
- Stewart Aaron
- July 14, 2023
Background
Randel Smickle, representing himself, filed a federal petition while his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim remained unexhausted in state court. He had a pending motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. The respondent did not oppose Smickle’s request to pause the federal case while that state proceeding was resolved.
The court had directed Smickle to explain why he had filed the federal petition before exhausting the state-court claim. Smickle filed the required letter on July 14, 2023.
Ruling
The court found that Smickle showed good cause for filing before exhaustion because he was reasonably confused about the proper procedure. The court ordered that the action be stayed while Smickle exhausts his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
Smickle must update the court after receiving a decision on his § 440.10 motion. If that motion is denied, he must provide another update after receiving a decision on any request for permission to appeal. The respondent must file a status-update letter by December 31, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.