Richardson v. Lee

Filing 24

SUMMARY ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Richardson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Signed by Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/11/2022. (Copy served via regular mail)(meb)

Case 9:20-cv-00809-GLS-ATB Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
KARREIM RICHARDSON,
Petitioner,

9:20-cv-809
(GLS/ATB)

v.
WILLIAM LEE,
Respondent.
________________________________
SUMMARY ORDER
On July 17, 2020, pro se petitioner Karreim Richardson filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging Albany County Court’s judgment of conviction, upon a jury
verdict, on five counts of second degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon,
for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Pet. ¶¶ 1-6, 12, Dkt. No. 1.)
New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department,
affirmed the judgment, and, on December 13, 2018, the New York State
Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. See New York v. Richardson,
162 A.D. 3d 1328 (3d Dep’t 2018), lv to appeal den., 32 N.Y.3d 1128
(2018).
In a Report-Recommendation (R&R) filed on July 1, 2021, Magistrate

Case 9:20-cv-00809-GLS-ATB Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 5

Judge Andrew T. Baxter recommended that Richardson’s petition be
denied and dismissed. (Dkt. No. 16 at 3.) For the reasons that follow, the
R&R is adopted and Richardson’s petition is denied and dismissed.
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report
and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge.
If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's
findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and
recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No.
04–cv–484, 2006 WL 149049, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those
cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general
objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and
recommendations of a magistrate judge for clear error. See id. at *5
“[W]hen an objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the
objecting party in its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the
Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation challenged by
those arguments to only a clear error review.” Smurphat v. Hobb, No.
8:19-CV-0804, 2021 WL 129055, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2021) (citations
omitted).
In his objections, Richardson makes several arguments, most of
2

Case 9:20-cv-00809-GLS-ATB Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 5

which are general or reiterations of the allegations and information already
provided in papers submitted to Magistrate Judge Baxter, (see generally
Dkt. No. 1, 15, 20), which triggers review for clear error.
Richardson raises only one arguably specific objection to the R&R,
objecting “to the claim that [Richardson] changed his argument.” (Dkt. No.
20 at 1.) However, to the extent that Richardson raises a specific
objection, he misapprehends the law. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge
Baxter explained that Richardson “changed his argument” from the time of
his post-conviction motion to his habeas petition to allege his “counsel was
ineffective in failing to move to dismiss the indictment on ‘legal
insufficiency’ grounds because there was insufficient evidence . . . that
[Richardson] possessed the firearms ‘in public,’” a claim Richardson failed
to raise in New York State court, “making [this] claim unexhausted.” (Dkt.
No. 16 at 15-16.) Magistrate Judge Baxter also noted that, since
Richardson is now unable to challenge his conviction through the New
York State courts, the “legal insufficiency” claim would be deemed
procedurally defaulted. (Id.) Richardson points to his writ of error coram
nobis as evidence that he raised this claim in previous New York State
court proceedings. (Dkt. No. 20 at 1-2.)
3

Case 9:20-cv-00809-GLS-ATB Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 4 of 5

While Richardson’s objection to the R&R regarding his shifting
arguments might appear specific, which would necessitate de novo review,
this objection misinterprets the law and is irrelevant to Magistrate Judge
Baxter’s reasons for recommending denial and dismissal of the petition.
Indeed, Magistrate Judge Baxter acknowledged that the claim regarding
the sufficiency of the evidence was raised in Richardson’s coram nobis
application with respect to Richardson’s appellate counsel. (Dkt. No. 16 at
16.) The R&R also addressed the merits of Richardson’s sufficiency of the
evidence claim and found that it was without merit,1 as such, “[Richardson]
failed to show either that his original trial counsel or his appellate counsel
were ineffective for failing make this argument.” (Id. at 17-18.) Moreover,
Richardson’s objection fails to demonstrate why his contention that he did
not change his argument is at all relevant to the recommended disposition.
Richardson’s remaining arguments are general and reiterate his prior
arguments, and, thus, are reviewed for clear error only, of which this court
finds none.
1

For example, Magistrate Judge Baxter found Richardson’s
argument that he was not in public “meritless,” and further noted that “the
main problem with petitioner’s argument [that he was not in public] is that
the elements of [N.Y. Penal Law] section 265.03(3) do not specify that the
petitioner be ‘out in public.’” (Dkt. No. 16 at 17.)
4

Case 9:20-cv-00809-GLS-ATB Document 24 Filed 01/11/22 Page 5 of 5

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Richardson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 11, 2022
Albany, New York

5