Journet v. Coombe, 83 Civ. 2273 (SWK).
Decision Date | 01 August 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 83 Civ. 2273 (SWK).,83 Civ. 2273 (SWK). |
Citation | 567 F. Supp. 503 |
Parties | Michael JOURNET, Petitioner, v. Philip COOMBE, Jr., Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Michael Journet, petitioner pro se.
Robert Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., New York County, New York City, for respondent; Amy Jane Rettew, Susan Corkery, New York City, of counsel.
Respondent, the State of New York, has moved for a dismissal of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons stated herein, respondent's motion is denied.
Petitioner, Michael Journet, has petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted on November 23, 1977 of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law §§ 220.43, 220.39). The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division, First Department, People v. Journet, 74 A.D.2d 1005, 426 N.Y.S.2d 891 (1980). Leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied, 50 N.Y.2d 846, 430 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 407 N.E.2d 1359 (1980). Petitioner also brought a motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 440.20 to vacate his sentence, claiming that the sentence was excessive and therefore constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner's CPL § 440.20 motion was denied by the trial court on January 15, 1982.
In petitioner's direct appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, he claimed that: 1) the trial court erroneously refused to order disclosure of an informant's identity and to give a missing witness charge; 2) the prosecutor's summation denied him a fair trial; and 3) that there was only one drug transfer and therefore the second, less serious, count should have been dismissed. In a pro se supplementary brief, petitioner claimed further that he was denied a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
The State has moved to dismiss Journet's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Journet failed to exhaust his state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c) with respect to his claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. The State argues that by failing to raise this claim before the trial court, petitioner failed to exhaust a state remedy available to him under CPL § 440.10. The State concedes that petitioner has exhausted his state remedies for all other claims.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254, an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be granted only if the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the state. This provision reflects a policy of federal-state comity by requiring that the state court be provided with a fair opportunity to consider the claim presented before a federal court reviews the matter. Daye v. New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir.1982); Vidal v. Harris, 477 F.Supp. 526, 529 (S.D.N.Y.1979).
The State contends that Journet has not exhausted his state remedies because of an available state remedy under CPL § 440.10, which permits a defendant to move, at any time, to vacate a judgment on the ground that it was obtained in violation of defendant's constitutional rights. CPL § 440.10(1)(h). However, such a motion is moot and must be denied if the issue raised upon the motion was previously determined on the merits in an appeal from the judgment. CPL § 440.10(2)(a). This court has noted that the exception to CPL § 440.10 Vidal, 477 F.Supp. at 528 (emphasis added).
If we were to hold that petitioner had not exhausted all his available state remedies, petitioner would then be required to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim a second time simply because the appellate court did not specifically address it. Id. Imposition of such a requirement would not serve to further the goals of the exhaustion doctrine. The purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to guarantee to the state a fair opportunity to consider the constitutional claims raised by the petition. In this case, Journet's Supplemental Brief to the New York Appellate Division clearly raised the issue of denial of a federal constitutional right due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, respondents extensively addressed this point in eight (8) pages of their reply brief. The state court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rios v. Bradt
...to have denied the claim on the merits since it affirmed the Trial Court's decision. (R&R 12-13 (first citing Journet v. Coombe, 567 F. Supp. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); and then citing Quintero v. Heath, No. 10-CV-8709, 2012 WL 4747181, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2012).)) Judge Bloom determine......
-
Journet v. Coombe
...filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. Having previously determined that Journet has exhausted his state court remedies (See 567 F.Supp. 503 (1983)), the Court now decides the merits of Journet's DISCUSSION I Petitioner's first claim is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel......
-
Journet v. Coombe
...to reargue this Court's denial of respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner Michael Journet's habeas corpus petition on the ground, 567 F.Supp. 503, that Journet failed to exhaust his state court remedies as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) ......