Opinion
06 Civ. 3112 (PKC) (KNF).
January 26, 2007 AMENDED January 31, 2007
AMENDED MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This Memorandum and Order has been amended solely to reflect the correct docket number and replaces the Memorandum and Order dated January 26, 2007, which lists the docket number incorrectly as 05 Civ. 6082.
Petitioner Osvaldo Vasquez has made an application for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends his confinement by the state of New York is unlawful because, inter alia, insufficient evidence was offered, by the prosecution, at his trial to secure a conviction and the trial judge made erroneous rulings, that deprived the petitioner of his constitutional right to due process. The petitioner has requested that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in obtaining the relief he seeks through the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, the petitioner's request, that counsel be appointed to assist him, is denied.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appointment of counsel is discretionary. See Coita v. Leonardo, No. 96 Civ. 1044, 1998 WL 187416, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. April 14, 1998). Among the factors which a court may consider in determining whether to grant a habeas corpus petitioner's application for appointment of counsel is whether an evidentiary hearing should be held in connection with the petition. Where no hearing is to be held, the appointment of counsel is not warranted. See U.S. ex rel Cadogan v. LaVallee, 502 F.2d 824, 826 (2d Cir. 1974); see also Adams v. Greiner, No. 97 Civ. 3180, 1997 WL 266984 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 1997).
The Court has reviewed the petition and the answer submitted on behalf of the respondent and has determined that a hearing does not appear to be necessary. It appears to the Court that the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus may be addressed by analyzing the written submissions made by the parties, as well as the record generated during proceedings held in the state courts. Accordingly, petitioner's request for appointed counsel is denied.