Bravo v. Couture

3 Citing cases

  1. Bennett v. Conway

    09 Civ. 5264 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2010)

    Most district courts in this circuit have rejected such claims. See Green v. Walsh, No. 03CV00908, 2006 WL 2389306 at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2006) ("a stand-alone claim of actual innocence is not cognizable on habeas review") (internal citations and quotations omitted); Ortiz v. Woods, 463 F. Supp. 2d 380 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (noting the Supreme Court's declaration inHerrera that absent an independent constitutional violation at trial, a claim of newly discovered evidence does not provide a basis for habeas relief); Bravo v. Couture, No. 98-CV-8050, 2003 WL 22284147 at *4 ("Habeas corpus review does not extend to `freestanding claims of actual innocence.'"). As far as ineffective assistance of counsel, the sum and substance of petitioner's allegation is that he was "denied the effective assistance of counsel by counsel's failure to adequately investigate and prepare for trial."

  2. Cole v. Walsh

    05-CV-736 (SLT) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2009)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Several district courts in this Circuit have taken the Supreme Court's reluctance to recognize a freestanding innocence claim as a cue to declare that no such basis of relief exists. See, e.g., Rojas v. Woods, 2008 WL 2875082, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2008) ("litigants relying on an allegedly improper denial of an application pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. ยง 440.10(1)(g) have [been denied] habeas relief on the ground that there is no federal constitutional right at issue"); Pimentel v. United States, 2008 WL 2151796, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2008) ("Had the Court construed Pimentel's habeas claim as one of actual innocence claim . . ., that claim would not have been cognizable."); Ortiz v. Barkley, 2008 WL 2266313, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2008) ("actual innocence is not itself a constitutional claim"); Edwards v. United States, 2005 WL 1522743, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2005); Bravo v. Couture, 2003 WL 22284147, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2003) ("Habeas corpus review does not extend to `freestanding claims of actual innocence.'"); Arce v. Comm'r of Corr. Servs., 2007 WL 2071713, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 17, 2007) ("Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that claims of innocence without reliance on constitutional infirmities in the trial do not present a ground for federal habeas corpus relief.").

  3. Pimentel v. U.S.

    96 Civ. 5891 (JFK), 91 CR. 83 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y. May. 21, 2008)   Cited 13 times
    Denying petitioner relief under Rule 60(b)

    See also Greene v. Walker, No. 98 2149, 1999 WL 1489805, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 29, 1999) (citing Herrera and holding that a claim of actual innocence, standing alone, "fails to demonstrate a constitutional defect that would undermine the underlying conviction"). District courts, following Herrera, have repeatedly held that a "freestanding" claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, i.e., one unaccompanied by an allegation of some constitutional error, does not provide a basis for habeas relief. See, e.g., Bravo v. Couture, No. 98 CV 8050, 2003 WL 22284147, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2003) (Weinstein, J.) ("Habeas corpus review does not extend to `freestanding claims of actual innocence.'" (quoting Herrera)); Arce v. Commissioner of Correctional Services, No. 06 CV 5573, 2007 WL 2071713, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 17, 2007) ("Courts in this Circuit have repeatedly held that claims of innocence without reliance on constitutional infirmities in the trial do not present a ground for federal habeas corpus relief."); Edwards v. United States, No. 05 CV 0017, 2005 WL 1522743 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2005) ("Petitioner fails to articulate a constitutional deprivation cognizable under Section 2255 relating to his claim of newly discovered evidence.