That motion was granted in part and denied in part. Jamison v. Senkowski, No. 99 Civ. 9424 (NRB), 2001 WL 246397 (S.D.N.Y. March 13, 2001). As a part of that ruling, the Court found that "federal courts conducting habeas corpus review are precluded from examining state criminal sentencing decisions based on state law so long as those decisions do not violate the federal constitution."
An attorney's failure to communicate a plea offer to his or her client or advise the client about the merits and risks of accepting or rejecting an offer may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Pham v. United States, 317 F.3d 178, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2003); Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41, 44-45 (2d Cir. 2000); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 404 (2d Cir. 1999); Jamison v. Senkowski, 2001 WL 246397, at *4-*5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2001). Failing to communicate a client's acceptance of a plea offer also "present[s] a serious ineffective assistance question." United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 219 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492, 496 (2d Cir. 1996)).