Word v. Lord
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9742
2d Cir.2011Background
- Word, convicted in New York Supreme Court, New York County, of reckless manslaughter and depraved indifference murder in connection with the death of her infant; sentences: 5–15 years for manslaughter and 15 years to life for murder.
- Appellate Division affirmed both convictions on direct appeal.
- Word unsuccessfully sought a writ of error coram nobis in 2001 and 2003; she filed a third coram nobis petition in 2009.
- Appellate Division summarily denied the 2009 coram nobis petition; New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal and reconsideration in 2010–2011.
- Word has pursued federal habeas petitions (2000, 2003, 2004, 2008); district court and this circuit addressed gatekeeping and cognizable claims; the current motion seeks leave to file a successive petition challenging 2010–2011 denials of coram nobis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §2254 petition can challenge state post-conviction proceedings | Word argues new coram nobis denials are new evidence under §2244(b)(2) | Denial of post-conviction relief is not cognizable under §2254 | Not cognizable; §2254 relief bars challenges to state post-conviction proceedings |
| Whether the latest coram nobis denials constitute "newly discovered evidence" under §2244(b)(2) | Denials are newly discovered evidence requiring review in a successive petition | Denials do not create a cognizable federal habeas claim | No; not a proper basis for a successive §2254 petition |
| Whether Word's procedural due process challenge to state collateral review can support §2254 relief | State collateral review violated due process; constitutionally cognizable | State collateral review errors do not themselves create federal habeas relief | Procedural issues in state post-conviction review are not cognizable under §2254 |
Key Cases Cited
- Lackawanna County Dist. Atty. v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2001) (state-post-conviction procedures not required by Constitution)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (habeas review requires violation of federal Constitution or laws)
- Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2008) (state post-conviction errors not cognizable under §2254)
- Bell-Bey v. Roper, 499 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2007) (state post-conviction proceedings not grounds for habeas relief)
- Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2004) (state post-conviction errors not cognizable under §2254)
- Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 1999) (courts declined to review state collateral review errors in general)
- Sellers v. Ward, 135 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 1998) (cognizability of collateral-review errors under federal habeas)
- Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 1998) (constitutional sufficiency of state-post-conviction proceedings)
- Spradley v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1987) (permissible scope of habeas review regarding state collateral review)
- Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1986) (limits of federal review of state post-conviction processes)