Stevens v. Capra

Filing 12

I deny the petition as amended for the reasons stated in the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bloom and because the amendment to the petition challenging the petitioners sentence is without merit. The fact that the petitioners co-defendant received a lesser sentence simply is indicative of the fact that his co-defendant pled guilty and received or negotiated for special consideration for the plea. This disparity does not render petitioners sentence cruel or unusual. Certificate of Appealability Denied re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jamel Stevens. c/m. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 7/12/2016. (Susi, PaulaMarie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JAMEL STEVENS,
Petitioner,
– against –
MICHAEL CAPRA,

14-CV-05124 (ERK)
Respondent.

16-CV-02684 (ERK)

JAMEL STEVENS,
Petitioner,
– against –
MICHAEL CAPRA,
Respondent.

ORDER
KORMAN, J.:
I assume familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Briefly,
on August 19, 2014, Jamel Stevens filed a petition challenging his 2011 conviction for two counts
of first-degree robbery and one count of second-degree unlawful imprisonment. While the petition
was pending (and remains pending), Stevens pursued successfully relief from the sentence of
twenty-two years that was imposed as a result of his conviction. Specifically, the sentence was
modified “as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of
imprisonment from 22 years to 17 years; as so modified, the judgment [was] affirmed.” People v.
Stevens, 134 A.D.3d 1057, 1057 (2d Dep’t 2015). Subsequently on May 16, 2016, Stevens filed a
1

petition, which challenged the length of his sentence as reduced by the Appellate Division. Stevens
claims that the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of
justice. Moreover, when compared to the twelve-year sentence that was imposed on his codefendant who pled guilty to the offense of first-degree robbery, the sentence imposed on Stevens
constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Pet. 1, ECF No. 1.
Because the initial petition has not yet been decided, I treat the May 16th petition as an
amendment to the original petition, and I directed the clerk to consolidate the two petitions. In
sum, before me now is a Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bloom, dated
November 3, 2015, that the initial petition be denied. ECF No. 9. And the second petition, I treat
as an amendment to the original petition.
I deny the petition as amended for the reasons stated in the recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Bloom and because the amendment to the petition challenging the petitioner’s sentence is
without merit. The fact that the petitioner’s co-defendant received a lesser sentence simply is
indicative of the fact that his co-defendant pled guilty and received or negotiated for special
consideration for the plea. This disparity does not render petitioner’s sentence cruel or unusual.
CONCLUSION
The petition, as amended, is denied. I also deny a certificate of appealability.

SO ORDERED.
Brooklyn, New York
July 8, 2016

Edward R. Korman
Edward R. Korman
United States District Judge

2