Urena v. People of State of New York, No. 99 Civ. 5748(DLC).
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Cote |
| Citation | 160 F.Supp.2d 606 |
| Parties | Felipe URENA, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 99 Civ. 5748(DLC). |
| Decision Date | 10 April 2001 |
v.
The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
Page 607
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 608
Felipe Urena, Malone, NY, Petitioner, pro se.
Bruno V. Gioffre, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, New York City, for Respondent.
COTE, District Judge.
In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on July 20, 1999,1 Felipe Urena ("Urena") challenges his conviction following a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, New York Penal Law ("PL") § 220.41. On November 6, 2000, Magistrate Judge Fox issued a Report, recommending that this petition be dismissed. The petitioner has submitted a written response to the Report, which is construed as a timely objection. Based upon the analysis which follows, the Report is adopted and this petition is dismissed.
The record shows the following. Petitioner Urena was indicted and charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. At a pretrial conference on July 24, 1997, Judge Alderberg, in the Supreme Court of New York County, informed the parties of a new case that the prosecutor had moved to consolidate with this one, but that did not include any additional charges against petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner's counsel, Michael Yuceviceius ("Yuceviceius"), the petitioner, and the court had the following conversation:
MR. YUCEVICEIUS: Mr. Urena wanted to be heard in the matter of assignment of new counsel.
THE COURT: Yes.
THE DEFENDANT: If you are going to have additional charges why don't you just wrap everything and do an offer of something because I am not going to stand here with 9 or 800 charges against me.
THE COURT: The offer is three years to life.
THE DEFENDANT: I will plead guilty.
Yuceviceius then notified the court that he would withdraw Urena's plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty on his behalf to a violation of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, noting for the record that "th[e] motion to consolidate does not include any new charge against Mr. Urena." The court confirmed on the record that the new case involved a different defendant. Following a brief recess during which the prosecutor confirmed that the plea offer remained available, Urena entered a guilty plea. Urena represented that he had sold over two ounces of cocaine to an undercover officer on December 6, 1996, at 547 West 142nd Street in New York County, that he knew that he would be sentenced to three years to life, that no other promises — beyond the promised sentence — were made to him, that he was not threatened in order to plead guilty, and that he knew that, in
Page 609
pleading guilty, he was giving up his right to trial and the derivative rights to be represented by counsel, cross-examine witnesses, remain silent, and require the prosecutor to prove Urena's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
On August 8, 1997, Urena appeared before the court to be sentenced. At sentencing, Yuceviceius represented to the court that Urena had an "application": he wished to withdraw his plea, and had told the probation officer that "[h]e believes that [Judge Alderberg] and [Yuceviceius] and the prosecutor were less than fair with him." When the court asked defense counsel what, specifically, Urena contended, defense counsel suggested that Urena address the court himself. Through a Spanish interpreter, the following conversation ensued:
THE COURT: Mr. Urena, you want to take your plea back?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Why?
THE DEFENDANT: Because I don't feel guilty and I can't go to sentence for a crime I did not commit.
THE COURT: Your application is denied. Any legal cause to show why sentence should not be imposed?
MR. YUCEVICEIUS: No.
THE COURT: Do the People wish to be heard?
[THE GOVERNMENT]: I will rely on the promise.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. YUCEVICEIUS: Actually, there is one thing. The probation report says that he is a predicate felon. He is not and the People have conceded —
THE COURT: You are moving to amend the report accordingly.
MR. YUCEVICEIUS: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you wish to say anything?
THE DEFENDANT: Well, a guarantee for a trial.
THE COURT: Defendant is sentenced to state prison for a minimum term of three years maximum term of life. Mandatory surcharge is imposed.
THE DEFENDANT: I want to take away this lawyer.
MR. YUCEVICEIUS: Mr. Urena has been handed written notice of his right to appeal and I am advising him he has 30 days in which to appeal.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Urena appealed his conviction to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division with assigned appellate counsel, Laura Rossi-Ortiz. In her brief, Rossi-Ortiz asked to be relieved of the obligation of representing petitioner on the grounds that there were no non-frivolous grounds to be raised on appeal. Ross-Ortiz's application to withdraw as counsel was granted and Urena's conviction was affirmed on December 1, 1998. The Court of Appeals denied Urena's motion for leave to appeal on April 5, 1999.
Urena filed this petition on July 20, 1999. In his petition, Urena principally raises four claims, namely that (1) his guilty plea was unlawfully induced or was involuntary; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and (3) on appeal, and (4) that he was denied his right to appeal.
In reviewing the Report, this Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that
Page 610
there is no clear error on the face of the record." Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (citations omitted). See also Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F.Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (court may accept report if it is "not facially erroneous"). The Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made. United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1997). In light of the fact that Urena's written response to the Report raised only one objection to its conclusions, only a few of the issues raised in the Report merit further discussion here.
1. Involuntary Plea
Petitioner asserts in his habeas petition that his plea was involuntary "because of lies by the D.A. and attorney" and "the presence of a false witness by the D.A. and false statement by the same person." Urena additionally asserts in his petition that he "was not guilty of the charge" to which he pled guilty.
The standard for determining the validity of a guilty plea is "whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant." Ventura v. Meachum, 957 F.2d 1048, 1058 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). "[A] plea is deemed `intelligent' if the accused had the advice of counsel and understood the consequences of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eurospark Ind. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, No. 1:05-CV-0208 (ENV)(JMA).
...made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, depending upon history, one of two standards apply. See Urena v. People, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y.2001). Unobjected to findings of the R & R may be adopted by the district court so long as they are not clearly erroneou......
-
Corines v. Superintendent, Otisville Cor. Facility, No. 05-CV-2056 (NGG)(SMG).
...Petitioner has not objected and finds them to be thorough, well-reasoned, and well-founded in applicable law. See Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (where no timely objection has been made, the "court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the fac......
-
Best Payphones, Inc. v. Dobrin, 01-CV-3934 (LDH) (ST)
...Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd. , 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Urena v. New York , 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).BACKGROUND4 I. The Legislative and Regulatory BackdropIn Septembe......
-
Joseph v. HDMJ Rest., Inc., No. 09–CV–0240 (JS)(AKT).
...have been made, the “court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609–10 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, no party has objected to Judge Tomlinson's R & R, and the Court fin......
-
Corines v. Superintendent, Otisville Cor. Facility, No. 05-CV-2056 (NGG)(SMG).
...Petitioner has not objected and finds them to be thorough, well-reasoned, and well-founded in applicable law. See Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (where no timely objection has been made, the "court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the fac......
-
Best Payphones, Inc. v. Dobrin, 01-CV-3934 (LDH) (ST)
...Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd. , 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Urena v. New York , 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).BACKGROUND4 I. The Legislative and Regulatory BackdropIn Septembe......
-
Joseph v. HDMJ Rest., Inc., No. 09–CV–0240 (JS)(AKT).
...have been made, the “court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609–10 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, no party has objected to Judge Tomlinson's R & R, and the Court fin......
-
Kohler Co. v. Bold Int'l Fzco, 17-cv-4233 (LDH) (RLM)
...Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imps. Ltd. , 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Urena v. New York , 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Magistrate Jud......