Sitarski v. State of New York
Decision Date | 14 May 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1971-567. |
Parties | Frank SITARSKI, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Henrietta M. Wolfgang, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo, N. Y. (Charles J. Scibetta, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for petitioner.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York (Bedros Odian, Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for respondent.
In 1970, after a trial by jury in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, petitioner Frank Sitarski was convicted of attempted grand larceny in the third degree and burglary in the third degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of one year and up to seven years. His conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, People v. Sitarski, 36 A.D.2d 581, 317 N.Y.S.2d 746 (4th Dept. 1971), and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus followed.
Although petitioner is presently confined at the Federal Correctional Facility at Atlanta, Georgia, he is subject to a New York parole detainer warrant and will commence his sentence under the conviction he now challenges upon completion of his federal sentence. He is therefore "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), and this court therefore has jurisdiction of his petition. See United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F.2d 1176, 1179 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 941, 91 S.Ct. 944, 28 L.Ed.2d 222 (1971).
Petitioner presents three grounds for relief, the first of which is that his conviction was so lacking in proper evidentiary foundation as to violate his right to due process of law. See Johnson v. Florida, 391 U.S. 596, 88 S.Ct. 1713, 20 L.Ed.2d 838 (1968); Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960). Because this claim has not been "fairly presented to the state courts," Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971), it may not be considered by this court at this time unless, as petitioner contends, "there is . . . an absence of available State corrective process." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The basis of the contention is that, because petitioner is presently confined outside New York State, the state remedy of habeas corpus is unavailable to him. See N.Y. Civil Prac.Laws & Rules § 7002(a) (McKinney 1971 Supp.) (permitting "a person illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty within the state" to petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Notwithstanding the unavailability of state habeas corpus, however, relief should be available to petitioner under Section 440.10(1)(h) of the recently enacted New York Criminal Procedure Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 11-A, which provides as follows:
The availability of a motion under Section 440.10(1)(h) requires that petitioner's first claim not be considered on the instant application.
Petitioner's second and third claims were raised on his appeal of his conviction and are hence properly before this court. The second claim is that petitioner was denied due process of law and equal protection of the laws when, pursuant to Section 360 of the former New York Code of Criminal Procedure,2 a juror was sworn over his and one codefendant's peremptory challenges because the other codefendant refused to join in the challenges. At least as to peremptory challenges, however, a requirement that codefendants join their challenges is not unconstitutional. See Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, 470, 40 S.Ct. 259, 64 L.Ed. 360 (1920); Stilson v. United States, 250 U.S. 583, 586-587, 40 S.Ct. 28, 63 L.Ed. 1154 (1919); United States v. Stidham, 459 F.2d 297, 298-299 (10th Cir. 1972); United States v. Macke, 159 F.2d 673, 675 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 810, 67 S.Ct. 1201, 91 L.Ed. 1830 (1947). In Stilson, the Supreme Court stated as follows:
Petitioner's final claim is that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury when one prospective juror was selected from a box containing only that juror's ballot. Petitioner contends that the clerk erred in not mixing in the ballots of other potential jurors present in the courtroom before drawing out a ballot. In the absence of any showing that the alleged error was part of an arbitrary and systematic attempt to exclude a class of persons from the jury, see Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 82 S.Ct. 159, 7 L. Ed.2d 118 (1961); Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 67 S.Ct. 1613, 91 L.Ed. 2043 (1947), or that it operated to petitioner's prejudice,3cf. United States v. Davis, 456 F.2d 1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 1972); Watts v. United States, 212 F.2d 275, 279 (10th Cir. 1954), vacated on other grounds, 348 U.S. 905, 75 S.Ct. 311, 99 L.Ed. 710 (1955), no violation of petitioner's right to a fair and impartial jury occurred.4
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Certificate of probable cause is denied.
Permission to appeal in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goodwin v. Hammock, 80 Civ. 2270.
...(E.D.N.Y.1973), aff'd, 495 F.2d 1367 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 986, 95 S.Ct. 245, 42 L.Ed.2d 194 (1974); Sitarski v. United States, 358 F.Supp. 817, 818 (W.D.N.Y.1973). 5 Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1126, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Picar......
-
Leyva v. SUPER., GREEN HAVEN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
...1974). But until the avenue of relief in the State court is exhausted, federal habeas corpus is unavailable. See Sitarski v. State of New York, 358 F.Supp. 817 (W.D.N.Y. 1973); cf. United States ex rel. Rohrlich v. Wallack, 251 F.Supp. 1009 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). Petitioner's request for an evide......
-
People v. Mattison
...N.Y.S.2d 61, 392 N.E.2d 1244). The challenge to the constitutionality of CPL 270.25 (subd. 3) is without merit (see Sitarski v. State of New York, 358 F.Supp. 817, 819; see, also, People v. Doran, 246 N.Y. 409, 425-427, 159 N.E. 379). Finally, the sentence imposed, which was substantially l......
-
State v. Allan
...dismissed, 376 U.S. 187, 84 S.Ct. 638, 11 L.Ed.2d 603 (1964); State v. Pettilla, 116 Wash. 589, 200 P. 332 (1921); Sitarski v. New York, 358 F.Supp. 817 (W.D.N.Y.1973); People v. King, 240 Cal.App.2d 389, 49 Cal.Rptr. 562, 21 A.L.R.3d 706 (1966), Cert. denied, 385 U.S. 923, 87 S.Ct. 236, 17......