852 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1988), 1366, Cappiello v. Hoke

Docket Nº:1366, Docket 88-2060.
Citation:852 F.2d 59
Party Name:John CAPPIELLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HOKE, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility, and The State of New York, Respondents-Appellees.
Case Date:July 20, 1988
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 59

852 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1988)

John CAPPIELLO, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Robert HOKE, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility,

and The State of New York, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 1366, Docket 88-2060.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

July 20, 1988

Argued July 20, 1988.

Decided .

Bennett M. Epstein, New York City (Isabelle A. Kirshner, Epstein & Kirshner, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

Michael Gore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty. for Kings County, Barbara D. Underwood, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for respondents-appellees.

Before ALTIMARI and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge. [*]

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-appellant John Cappiello appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Reena Raggi, Judge) dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. In his habeas petition, filed in the district court on January 26, 1987, Cappiello challenged his New York State court conviction on felony-murder charges. Cappiello asserted that he was denied his federal constitutional rights under the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Cappiello argued, inter alia, that various inculpatory statements he made to the police should have been excluded from his state trial because they were the product of an illegal detention in violation of the fourth amendment and that these same statements were the product of excessive coercion and thus were obtained in violation of his fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendment rights.

In a lengthy and thorough opinion, Judge Raggi disposed of each of his claims, holding, inter alia, that he was not entitled to habeas relief on his fourth amendment

Page 60

claims since he was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims in the state courts, see Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3046, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); McPhail v. Warden, Attica Correctional Facility, 707 F.2d 67, 69...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP