From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Isasi v. Herbert

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Oct 10, 2001
CV01-1804 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2001)

Opinion

CV01-1804 (JBW).

October 10, 2001


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


I. INTRODUCTION

Following the procedures required by the majority opinion r in Jones v. Senkowski, No. 00-2145 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2001), sharply limiting dismissal of non-exhausted, non-meritorious state claims in habeas petitions, the state courts will probably be put to many unnecessary and futile collateral proceedings and the federal courts will maintain on their dockets large numbers of "stayed" habeas petitions. This petition is one of those "docket-clogging" cases.

While comity requires that the state courts be given the first opportunity to deal with viable claims of constitutional error, the federal and state judicial systems in essence constitute an integrated institution for the administration of American justice. Any reasonable steps that federal judges can take to reduce unnecessary burdens on the overloaded state judges should be encouraged.

Petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder and first degree robbery as well as second and fourth-degree weapon possession. He was sentenced to a prison term of from 170-5/6 years to life.

He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that an oral statement that he had killed two men but not the women was taken in violation of his Miranda rights and that this violation tainted his subsequent written confession.

A full evidentiary hearing in the state court was held and his claim was rejected. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.

II. Procedural Complications

Upon the hearing in this court, petitioner for the first time raised the issue of an improper jury voir dire, ineffective counsel and other defects in his state trial. These issues appeared to be of highly unlikely merit; yet they must be exhausted in state court before they can be dealt with in federal court. See Jones v. Senkowski, No. 00-2145 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2001). Because it is a waste of court and party resources to dismiss the present petition and then rehear the issue already raised by the petition, the court will hold the case in a "stayed" posture to permit petitioner to apply to the state court for relief on his unexhausted issues. See Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 376 (2d Cir. 2001). See also Jones v. Senkowski, No. 00-2145 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2001) (court may dismiss without prejudice or retain jurisdiction over the petition and stay further proceedings pending exhaustion of state remedies; it may not permit an appeal on nonmeritorius claims unless the claim is held by the district court to be "hopeless").

The petitioner is warned that he must move expeditiously. See Aparicio v. Artuz, No. 00-2350, slip op. at 16, n. 5 (2d Cir. Oct 5, 2001) ("a stay ordinarily should be conditioned on the petitioner's beginning the state court proceeding within 30 days of the stay, and renewing the federal habeas action within 30 days of concluding the state proceeding"). The case is being held in this court in a non-active status to minimize the defendant's risk of being barred by the one year statute of limitations and of having to apply to the court of appeals in a second habeas corpus petition.

The issue already heard in this court will be decided by this order, but a final judgment will not now be entered. This practice will avoid a rehearing on the issue now decided.

A stay in this habeas proceeding will now be entered. This practice will save the court of appeals the burden of processing either two separate appeals or one appeal and a de novo application to hear a second independent petition.

III. FACTS

Petitioner was in handcuffs in a Mexican police office. A detective from the New York Police Department informed petitioner that he was there to talk to him about an incident that occurred in College Point, New York in January 1995. The detective stated that he knew what had happened and that he knew petitioner's real name. Petitioner lowered his head and placed it on the desk for a few moments. He then raised his head and stated in Spanish (repeating it in English) that he had killed the two men, but that he had not done anything to "those girls."

IV. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

The state hearing was adequate. The conclusions of the trial court were supported by the evidence. No violation of any federal right was proved.

The application of established relevant Supreme Court precedents was reasonable. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Rhode Island v. Innis, 466 U.S. 291 (1980). See also 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), (2); 2254(e)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).

V. CONCLUSION ON MIRANDA CLAIM

The Miranda issue raised in the present petition will be dismissed.

VI. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ON MIRANDA CLAIM

A certificate of appealability will be granted on the issue of whether a detective's introduction of himself to petitioner was, under the circumstances, an interrogation which led to petitioner's admission and, if so, whether it tainted his subsequent statement after he was givenMiranda warnings. United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 259-60 (2d Cir. 1997).

VII. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL ISSUES

As already noted, petitioner now seeks to raise new issues for the first time, requiring exhaustion in the state court. The present case is stayed and held open to permit an appropriate application in the state court. If the state proceeding is promptly started and petitioner's claims are rejected, petitioner may promptly move to amend his present petition. See Aparicio v. Artuz, No. 00-2350 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2001) (meaning of promptly).

An interlocutory appeal on the one constitutional issue now decided, if possible, is not desirable. Accordingly, this document is denominated an "order," not a "judgment." The proceeding is stayed.

Respondent is free to make any motion warranted by delay or other circumstances.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Isasi v. Herbert

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Oct 10, 2001
CV01-1804 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2001)
Case details for

Isasi v. Herbert

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD ISASI, Petitioner, v. VICTOR HERBERT, Superintendent, Attica…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Oct 10, 2001

Citations

CV01-1804 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2001)