Opinion
05 Civ. 8438 (CM) (KNF).
November 13, 2007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Vincent Warren ("Warren") has made an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Warren contends his confinement by the state of New York is unlawful because his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial were violated because, inter alia: (a) the prosecution engaged in misconduct, by failing to disclose evidence favorable to him; and (b) the trial court communicated with the deliberating jury outside his presence and that of his trial counsel. In addition, Warren alleges his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance to him, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right. The petitioner has requested that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in obtaining the relief he seeks through the instant application for the writ. For the reasons that follow, Warren'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, the petitioner's request for appointed counsel is denied.
SO ORDERED: