Baker v. Schneiderman
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER re: 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. For the reasons stated above, the Report is ADOPTED, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial s howing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Hoffler v. Bezio, 726 F.3d 144, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/8/2016) (spo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
:
JOANNE BAKER,
:
Petitioner, :
:
-against:
:
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of :
the State of New York,
:
Respondent. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X
3/8/16
14 Civ. 3663 (LGS) (KNF)
OPINION AND ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
Petitioner Joanne Baker brings this petition (the “Petition”) for a writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging her convictions upon her guilty plea for third-degree
grand larceny and third-degree insurance fraud. This case was referred to the Honorable Kevin
Nathaniel Fox for a report and recommendation (the “Report”). The Report, filed on September
8, 2015, recommends that the writ be denied. Petitioner submitted Objections to the Report (the
“Objections”). For the following reasons the Report is adopted, and the Petition is denied.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district 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). The district court
“may adopt those portions of the report to which no ‘specific, written objection’ is made, as long
as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections
are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Adams v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Educ., 855 F. Supp.
2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985)).
A district court must make a de novo review of any portion of a report to which a specific
objection is made on issues raised before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United
States v. Romano, 794 F.3d 317, 340 (2d Cir. 2015). When a party makes only conclusory or
general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments made below, a court will review
the report strictly for clear error. Diaz v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 13 Civ. 2038, 2015 WL
5577905, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015). Even when exercising de novo review, “[t]he district
court need not . . . specifically articulate its reasons for rejecting a party’s objections . . . .”
Morris v. Local 804, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 167 F. App’x 230, 232 (2d Cir. 2006).
Habeas relief under § 2254 may not be granted unless the state court’s decision was
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). State court factual findings “shall be presumed to be correct” and the
petitioner “shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and
convincing evidence.” Id. § 2254(e)(1).
II.
DISCUSSION
The Objections assert that the Report erred for two reasons.1 First, the Objections argue
that Judge Fox incorrectly excluded Petitioner’s submissions filed January 15, 2015 (the
“January 2015 Submissions”). Second, the Objections assert that the transcript “fully
indicate[s]” that Petitioner’s plea was coerced by the state court. These arguments are meritless.
With respect to the first objection, even if the January 2015 Submissions had been
considered, they would not alter the decision to deny the Petition since they do not raise
1
The facts and procedural history are set out in the Report.
2
meritorious arguments. The gravamen of the January 2015 Submissions’ argument is that
Petitioner’s plea was coerced -- an argument considered and rejected by the Report.
With respect to the second objection, the Report correctly concludes that Petitioner had
not met her burden of showing that she is entitled to habeas relief. A guilty plea must be a
“voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.”
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970). Here, the Second Department found that
Petitioner “was not coerced into pleading guilty by being forced to choose between admitting
guilt and remaining free, or maintaining innocence and going to jail” because she “could have
maintained her innocence and remained free on bail by choosing to proceed to trial.” People v.
Baker, 960 N.Y.S.2d 511, 512 (2d Dep’t 2013). The record amply supports the state court’s
finding and shows that Petitioner knew the nature and consequences of her guilty plea and that
she was provided with an opportunity to discuss her options with her attorneys. Petitioner’s plea
was therefore knowing and voluntary. Petitioner has not shown that a contrary finding is
warranted by clear and convincing evidence. The Second Department’s affirmance of
Petitioner’s conviction was also not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application
of, clearly established federal law. Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Report is ADOPTED, and the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is DENIED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
Hoffler v. Bezio, 726 F.3d 144, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in
3
forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Dated: March 8, 2016
New York, New York
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?