Delano F. v. Orlando

Background

Delano F. pleaded not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to two counts of third-degree arson on March 14, 2016. He later asked the New York State Supreme Court to withdraw or vacate that plea. The state trial court denied the request on August 30, 2017. The Appellate Division, Second Department dismissed his appeal, holding that New York’s criminal procedure law did not authorize an appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw or vacate such a plea. The New York Court of Appeals then summarily denied his request for permission to appeal.

Delano F. is confined at Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center as a consequence of the plea. He filed this federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to restore his not-guilty plea and vacate the state trial court’s order. Magistrate Judge Davison recommended denying the petition. Delano F. objected, and the respondents did not object to the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed de novo, meaning independently and without deference, the portions of the recommendation to which Delano F. made specific objections.

First, the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than § 2241, governed the petition. Section 2241 generally applies to challenges to the execution of a sentence or to conditions of confinement. Section 2254 applies to challenges to the commitment itself. Because Delano F. challenged the validity of the plea and the resulting commitment—not the conditions at the psychiatric facility—the court held that § 2254 applied.

Second, the court held that Delano F. had failed to exhaust available state remedies. Exhaustion generally requires a person seeking federal review under § 2254 to give the state courts an opportunity to address the claims first. The Appellate Division had determined that his direct appeal was unauthorized under New York law. But, according to the court, Delano F. could have sought state habeas relief under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7002. The court rejected the argument that this remedy was not obvious, explaining that the exhaustion requirement concerns available state remedies, not whether the remedy was obvious to the petitioner.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern overruled Delano F.’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Davison’s report and recommendation in full. The Petition was DENIED. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition made no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court noted that the same exhaustion conclusion would apply under § 2241.