22 F. Supp. 2d 259 - Jordan v. Lefevre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, New York procedural rules plainly bar petitioner from attempting to raise [the claims he raised before the Appellate Division but not-in his application for leave to appeal] before the New York Court of Appeals. Petitioner cannot again seek leave to appeal these claims in the Court of Appeals because he has already made the one request for leave to appeal to which he is entitled. See N.Y. Court Rules § 500.10 (a). Collateral review of these claims is also barred because the issues were previously determined on the merits on direct appeal. See N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law § 440.10(2)(a); see also N.Y.Crim.Proc. Law § 440.10(2)(c) (barring review if a claim could have been raised on direct review) .... We agree with the state, however, that petitioner’s forfeiture in state court of [the claim not adequately raised before the N.Y. Court of Appeals] bars him from litigating the merits of those claims in federal habeas proceedings, absent a showing of cause for the procedural default and prejudice resulting therefrom. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 492 , 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2647 , 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87-91 , 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506-2509 , 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Petitioner makes no showing of cause or of prejudice. The [claims not raised before the Court of Appeals] must therefore be dismissed without reaching the merits.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 68 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Lugo v. Kuhlmann · 58 F. Supp. 2d 157 - Howard v. Lacy

2. “Petitioner argues that by attaching his Appellate Division brief to his letter application to the Court of Appeals, he presented that court with an opportunity to rule on his sentencing and prosecuto-rial misconduct claims. He concedes, however, that his letter application requested that the Court of Appeals review only the search and seizure claim. The letter made no mention of the sentencing and prosecutorial misconduct claims. Under these circumstances, we disagree with petitioner’s assertion that the Court of Appeals was presented with his sentencing and prosecutorial misconduct claims. The fair import of petitioner’s submission to the Court of Appeals, consisting of his brief to the Appellate Division that raised three claims and a letter to the Court of Appeals arguing only one of them, was that the other two had been abandoned. The only possible indication that the other two claims were being pressed was the inclusion of a lengthy brief originally submitted to another court. This did not fairly apprise the court of the two claims. We decline to presume that the New York Court of Appeals has “a duty to look for a needle in a paper haystack.” For a federal court to hold that a state court had the opportunity to rule on a constitutional claim as to which no ruling was requested, and then to rule on the merits of the claim itself, would undermine the very considerations of comity that the rules of exhaustion were designed to protect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 F. Supp. 2d 157 - Howard v. Lacy

3. “For a federal claim to be considered exhausted, it must have been presented to the highest state court. A petitioner is not deemed to have presented a claim to the New York State Court of Appeals simply by attaching an Appellate Division brief without further elaboration of the claim in the petition for leave to appeal. [Citing Grey v. Hoke.] Further, a, petitioner has not fulfilled the exhaustion requirement by having made in the application for leave to appeal general reference to claims in the attached appellate brief meriting review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 58 F. Supp. 2d 157 - Howard v. Lacy