Edward R. Leasure v. William F. Keyser

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied Edward R. Leasure’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court held that several claims concerning the voluntariness of his guilty plea and competency-related inquiries were procedurally barred, while his remaining claims, including ineffective-assistance and sentencing challenges, failed on the merits.

Holdings

1. Federal habeas review was barred because the state courts relied on New York's independent and adequate preservation rules when petitioner failed to raise these grounds in seeking to withdraw his plea or on direct appeal.
2. Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief based on enforcement of his appeal waiver or the alleged excessiveness of his sentence because he identified no clearly established Supreme Court precedent governing the validity of a sentencing appeal waiver.
3. Petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance based on alleged inaccurate advice about sentencing exposure because he did not show a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea and proceeded to trial.
4. Petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance because counsel reviewed the psychiatric records, reasonably determined that petitioner was competent to proceed, and made a strategic decision not to seek a competency evaluation or pursue an insanity defense; petitioner also failed to show that the defense would have been viable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether federal habeas review was procedurally barred for claims that the plea was involuntary because petitioner was allegedly misinformed about his sentencing exposure and because the trial court failed to inquire into competency or waiver of a psychiatric defense.
2. Whether federal habeas review was procedurally barred for the claim that the trial court failed to ask whether petitioner was taking mental-health medication when he pleaded guilty.
3. Whether enforcement of petitioner's appeal waiver or his allegedly excessive sentence violated clearly established federal law.
4. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allegedly misinforming petitioner about sentencing exposure.
5. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate competency, seek a competency evaluation, or pursue an insanity or psychiatric defense.

Disposition

dismissed