From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Chen

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 1, 2008
S4 06 CR. 457 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008)

Opinion

S4 06 CR. 457 (DC).

August 1, 2008


ORDER


Pursuant to Campusano v. United States, 442 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 2006), the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing today on the issue of whether defendant Hui Chen asked her attorney, Roy Kulcsar, Esq., to file a notice of appeal on her behalf. The Court asked questions of Ms. Chen as well as Mr. Kulcsar, and a non-party witness who acted as an interpreter also testified.

As stated on the record, the Court finds that Ms. Chen did ask Mr. Kulcsar to file a notice of appeal; she made this request at a meeting with Mr. Kulcsar approximately three days after her sentencing; and reiterated it in a subsequent phone conversation with the interpreter in which she asked the interpreter to relay to Mr. Kulcsar her request that he file a notice of appeal. Although the phone call may have been made after the ten-day period, it was still within the period within which Ms. Chen could have made a timely motion for an extension of time to appeal.

Despite being asked by Ms. Chen to file a notice of appeal, Mr. Kulcsar did not do so. Pursuant to Campusano, this qualifies asper se ineffective assistance of counsel. 442 F.3d at 773 (citing Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000)). Accordingly, defendant's July 2, 2008 letter is deemed a notice of appeal and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Campusano, the notice of appeal is hereby accepted for filing.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Chen

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 1, 2008
S4 06 CR. 457 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Chen

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HUI CHEN, Defendant

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

Date published: Aug 1, 2008

Citations

S4 06 CR. 457 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008)