Crayton v. Carlsen

Full title: CURTIS CRAYTON, Petitioner, v. SCOTT CARLSEN, SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 23, 2003

02 Civ. 2565 (JSR)(KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2003)

Opinion

02 Civ. 2565 (JSR)(KNF).

January 23, 2003.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

KEVIN FOX, Magistrate Judge

Curtis Crayton has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that his confinement by the State of New York is unlawful because the judge who presided at his trial interfered repeatedly with the examination of trial witnesses and failed to instruct the jury properly concerning the governing law. The petitioner also contends that the summation delivered by the prosecution was improper because arguments urged upon the jury were not supported by the trial evidence. The petitioner maintains that, as a result of the above, he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial.

Before the Court is a motion that counsel be appointed to assist the petitioner in obtaining the relief he seeks through the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons set forth below, the request that counsel be appointed to assist the petitioner 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).

Based upon a review of the petition and the answer submitted on behalf of the respondent, the Court has determined that a hearing does not appear to be necessary. It appears to the Court that Mr. Crayton'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.