Summary
stating that "[t]he Court has serious concerns whether it has jurisdiction of the Petition. In each of the Petition's eight causes of action, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has presented the allegations concerning extradition proceedings to all appropriate state court levels of review."
Summary of this case from McPherron v. New YorkOpinion
No. 01 Civ. 0677 (LTS)
February 22, 2001
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Anthony R. Martin filed an application in the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus styled "Emergency Motion to Stay Removal of Petitioner and to Order Petitioner Released on Bail" (the "Motion"). Petitioner asks this Court to issue an order staying the removal of Petitioner from New York State pending an appeal of a state court decision denying relief under Petitioner's state court petition for a writ of habeas corpus and releasing him on bail forthwith. Petitioner is scheduled to be extradited to Florida on February 22, 2001. The Attorney General of the State of New York has submitted a response which includes copies of state court proceedings pertaining to this matter. The Court has reviewed thoroughly the submissions of the parties and the decision rendered herein reflects such deliberation.
Petitioner was arrested in New York on November 1, 2000 pursuant to an outstanding warrant from the State of Florida charging Petitioner with violation of the terms of his probation arising from Petitioner's conviction for criminal mischief in Florida. On or about December 15, 2000, petitioner was released from custody. On December 20, 2000, a Governor's warrant was issued by the Governor of New York honoring the request of the Governor of Florida for the surrender of the Petitioner and extradition to Florida. In subsequent state court proceedings in connection with the extradition warrant, Petitioner was again placed in custody. Thereafter, Petitioner brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in New York state court seeking to invalidate the extradition warrant. On February 2, 2001, the state court denied the petition. Petitioner filed an appeal and sought to obtain a stay of judgment and bail pending the appeal. The stay was denied by the state court on February 13, 2001.
Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court on or about January 29, 2001 (the "Petition"). The Petition contains eight causes of action alleging various constitutional infirmities in connection with the proceedings to extradite Petitioner to Florida. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide the Motion depends upon whether the Court has jurisdiction of the Petition.
Before the Court considers a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a determination must be made as to whether the petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. United States ex rel. Nelson v. Zelker, 465 F.2d 1121, 1124 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1045 (1972). The Court has serious concerns whether it has jurisdiction of the Petition. In each of the Petition's eight causes of action, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has presented the allegations concerning extradition proceedings to all appropriate state court levels of review.
Even if the Court has jurisdiction over the Petition, however, the Motion must be denied because there is no showing that the extraordinary relief requested by Petitioner should be granted. It is well-settled that state court judgments concerning bail are accorded a presumption of regularity. Finetti v Harris, 609 F.2d 594, 601 (2d. Cir. 1979). This presumption may be overcome, "but the petitioner bears the burden of showing that there is no rational basis in the record for the denial of bail." Id. Moreover, "the mere failure of the state court to articulate reasons for its denial of bail pending appeal does not create a `presumption of arbitrariness.'" Id. (citations omitted).
In addition, the state court's examination of a warrant authorizing extradition is limited to whether the extradition documents are on their face in order. California v. Superior Court of California, 482 U.S. 400, 407- 408 (1987). Petitioner makes unsupported conclusory allegations concerning the state court extradition and bail proceedings, but has not established that the New York State court's review of the extradition documents was improper, nor that the state court's bail determination was without a rational basis. In the state court opinion denying petitioner's state court petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court represented that its "decisions in this matter were made on the record and were based solely on its reasoned assessment of the arguments of the parties and the applicable law." Anthony R. Martin v. Commissioner of Corrections, Index No. 2071/50 slip op. (Sup.Ct. Bronx Co. Feb. 2, 2001). Under these circumstances there is no basis to grant the extraordinary relief requested and it is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.