From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Herbert

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jan 19, 2006
No. CV 02-5746 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV 02-5746 (JBW).

January 19, 2006


MEMORANDUM and ORDER


By his brief dated June 24, 2005, respondent contended that the claim of ineffective counsel is unexhausted and procedurally barred. Brief pp. 1-2. Has this claim now been exhausted?

Has the claim of failure of the court to properly inquire before permitting petitioner to waive his right to counsel been exhausted? The State in its brief claims non-exhaustion. Id. p. 16. This now appears to be the main claim of petitioner.

Exhaustion also appears to be an issue related to the claim of ineffective appellate counsel. Id. p. 23.

The brief for petitioner does not seem to address these exhaustion issues. They should be addressed orally at the hearing with authorities and reference to the state record.

The parties are reminded that petitioner's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel requires, under practice of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that the trial advisory counsel and the appellate counsel appear at the hearing scheduled in this court or provide alternative assurances on the merits. See Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1998).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jones v. Herbert

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jan 19, 2006
No. CV 02-5746 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2006)
Case details for

Jones v. Herbert

Case Details

Full title:LEROY JONES, Petitioner, v. VICTOR HERBERT, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 19, 2006

Citations

No. CV 02-5746 (JBW) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2006)