Proctor v. McCarthy

Background

Allen Proctor, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request for federal review of a state conviction—under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged his New York conviction for second-degree assault. Proctor had pleaded guilty in New York County Supreme Court in January 2012, and the state court later sentenced him to five years in prison followed by five years of post-release supervision.

Proctor’s federal petition challenged the indictment, the validity of his guilty plea, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the performance of his trial and appellate lawyers. He also sought discovery of the bystander victim’s medical records, the grand-jury minutes, and the prosecutor’s case file. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott denied the discovery request and recommended denying the petition in a March 10, 2020 report and recommendation. Neither party objected to that report.

Claims and Analysis

The district court reviewed the report for clear error and found none. It adopted the report and considered Proctor’s claims.

Grand-jury claim. Proctor argued that the indictment was jurisdictionally defective because the prosecutor knowingly presented false evidence concerning the complainant’s injuries. The court stated that Proctor had not raised this claim in state court. It further concluded that the claim was not reviewable in a federal petition because the asserted right to a grand jury arose under New York law, and that his valid guilty plea cured any possible defect in the grand-jury proceeding.

Due-process claims. The court rejected Proctor’s arguments that his guilty plea was involuntary, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. During his plea hearing, Proctor stated under oath that he had enough time to discuss the plea with his attorney, that no one had forced or pressured him to plead guilty, and that he was pleading freely. The court also held that his evidence-sufficiency claim was procedurally barred because he had not raised it on direct appeal and no state forum remained available for exhaustion. In addition, the guilty plea forfeited his ability to challenge the conviction based on insufficient evidence.

The court likewise found Proctor’s claims about false evidence and withheld favorable evidence procedurally barred because he had not raised them on direct appeal. The court stated that he had shown neither a valid reason for the procedural default nor actual innocence. It also concluded that Proctor had not shown that the requested medical records would have been favorable to him or that the prosecution had suppressed material favorable evidence.

Ineffective-assistance claims. Applying the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel, the court held that Proctor had not shown deficient performance or resulting prejudice by either trial or appellate counsel. The court noted that Proctor received a beneficial plea bargain and had not shown a real likelihood of obtaining a better result at trial or on appeal.

Disposition

Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s report and recommendation in full and denied Proctor’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court had denied Proctor’s discovery motion through the magistrate judge’s order and directed the Clerk of Court to close the action.