Williams v. Lamanna

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations. It is hereby: ORDERED that the R&R, dated October 11, 2023, is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED. ORDERED that because 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); Small v. Orange Cnty. Ct., Prosecutors Off., No. 18- CV-2716, 2020 WL 1082710, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2020) (citing Lucidore v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 11112 (2d Cir 2000)), and the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, Whitted v. Stallone, No . 11-CV-7569, 2016 WL 1268278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). It is further: ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 3/25/24) (yv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 18-CV-2172 (KMK)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

JAIME LAMANNA,
Respondent.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

Following a jury trial, pro se Petitioner Michael Williams (“Petitioner”) was convicted in
in the County Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County (“Dutchess County Court”), on
four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and four counts
of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. (See Pet. for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Petition”) 1 (Dkt. No. 1).) On March 8, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to a ten-year
term of imprisonment relating to the criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance on
July 15, 2010, and another ten-year term of imprisonment relating to the criminal possession and
sale of a controlled substance on July 16, 2010, each to run consecutively, resulting in a twentyyear term of imprisonment to be followed by three years of post-release supervision. (See Aff. of
Kirsten A. Rappleyea, Esq. in Opp. to Pet. (“Rappleyea Aff.”) Ex. 18 (“Sentencing Tr.”) at 16–
19 (Dkt. No. 7-18).) On March 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a direct appeal through counsel. (See
id. Ex. 19 (Dkt. No. 7-19).) On February 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department (the “Second Department”), affirmed the
conviction. See People v. Williams, 47 N.Y.S.3d 421, 422–23 (App. Div. 2017). Petitioner then
requested leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. (See Rappleyea Aff. Ex. 23 (Dkt.
No. 7-23).) On May 12, 2017, the New York Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request. See

People v. Williams, 84 N.E.3d 979 (Table) (N.Y. 2017). Thereafter, Petitioner collaterally
attacked his conviction on September 5, 2017, filing a pro se motion to vacate the judgment
under New York Criminal Procedure Law (“N.Y.C.P.L.”) § 440.10. (See Rappleyea Aff. Ex. 28
(Dkt. No. 7-28).) The Dutchess County Court denied the motion on February 8, 2018, which
decision Petitioner did not appeal. (See id. Ex. 31 at 5 (Dkt. No. 7-31).)
On March 9, 2018, the instant Petition for Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 was docketed. (See generally Petition.) The matter was referred to the Honorable
Judith C. McCarthy (“Judge McCarthy”) on June 27, 2018. (See Dkt. No. 11.) On October 11,
2023, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this
Court deny the Petition in its entirety, and concluding that: (1) the Dutchess County Court did
not deprive Petitioner of his right to a public trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
when his family and friends were temporarily excluded from the courtroom, (see R&R 25–30
(Dkt. No. 14)); (2) the trial court did not violate Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to be present
at trial when it proceeded in his absence on the last day of testimony after he admittedly
“jump[ed] bail,” (see id. at 31–34; see also Sentencing Tr. at 11); (3) the prosecution’s
statements during summation did not deprive Petitioner of a fair trial, (see R&R at 35–37), nor
did its use of slides, with certain portions of the record circled and highlighted, during
summation, (see id. at 38); (4) Petitioner failed to raise a cognizable federal constitutional issue
in connection with his sentence, (see id. at 39–40); (5) the trial judge’s decision to discharge a
juror—who agreed she could not be fair and impartial—did not violate Petitioner’s constitutional
rights, (see id. at 40–42); and (6) the combination of all errors alleged in the Petition and

2

described in the R&R did not render Petitioner’s conviction constitutionally infirm, (see id. at
42–43). Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R&R. 1
“When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for
clear error.” Carmichael v. Annucci, No. 20-CV-10622, 2023 WL 2870340, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 10, 2023); see also Goodall v. Von Blanckensee, No. 17-CV-3615, 2020 WL 1082565, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. 2020) (same); Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(same). “Clear error is found only when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Whitley v. Bowden, No. 17CV-3564, 2019 WL 1953941, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019) (quotation marks omitted); accord
United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court has carefully reviewed the
R&R and the Petition, and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the R&R, dated October 11, 2023, is ADOPTED in its entirety.
ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED.
ORDERED that because 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); Small
v. Orange Cnty. Ct., Prosecutors Off., No. 18-CV-2716, 2020 WL 1082710, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 5, 2020) (citing Lucidore v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111–12 (2d Cir.

1

Judge McCarthy provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule
8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, objections
to the R&R were due within fourteen days from the receipt of the R&R, or seventeen days from
the receipt of the same if the R&R was served upon the Parties by mail, and that the failure to
object would constitute a waiver of Petitioner’s right to appeal. (See R&R at 44–45.) Further,
because Petitioner has been transferred to several different prisons during the pendency of the
Petition, this Court reiterated this information in a separate Order dated December 19, 2023.
(See Order (Dkt. No. 15).)
3

2000)), and the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this
Order would not be taken in good faith, Whitted v. Stallone, No. 11-CV-7569, 2016 WL
1268278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962)). It is further:
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to
mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2024
White Plains, New York
KENNETH M. KARAS
United States District Judge

4