Hearing on habeas corpus petition ordered in weapon case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ordered a hearing on a habeas corpus petition that had been denied by a lower court.

Jamel Ethridge appealed a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan in the Eastern District of New York dismissing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denying his motion for reconsideration.

Ethridge challenged a weapon conviction claiming a state court judge should have granted a motion to suppress gun evidence because it was found in an illegal search.

Without giving Ethridge prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, the district court dismissed the petition concluding that his Fourth Amendment claim could not provide a basis for habeas relief because, as required by Stone v. Powell, a 1976 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, Ethridge had a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate the claim in state court.

“We hold that … a habeas petitioner is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a petition is dismissed under Stone,” Second Circuit Judge Joseph F. Bianco wrote in the decision.

The background of the case is as follows: In May 2015, police officers saw Ethridge using a cell phone while driving. When they tried to stop his car, Ethridge sped away and led the officers on a chase. After committing numerous traffic violations and crashing into four parked vehicles, Ethridge abandoned the car and fled on foot. He was caught soon after.

Ethridge was driving a rental vehicle. He gave the officers consent to search in the car for the rental agreement. During the search officers found a gun in the trunk.

Police also found 10 small plastic envelopes containing heroin on Ethridge.

After being charges with several crimes, including third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, Ethridge moved to suppress the gun evidence, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Ethridge claimed that even though he consented to a search of the car for the rental agreement, the consent extended only to the cab of the car, not the trunk, where the gun was found.

After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the gun. The trial court concluded that Ethridge’s consent to the search included the trunk.

In March 2017, Ethridge pled guilty, but reserved the right to appeal based on the court’s pretrial rulings, including the denial of his suppression motion.

Ethridge was sentenced to seven years in state prison and five years of supervised release.

Ethridge appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, which confirmed the conviction. The New York State Court of Appeals refused to hear an appeal.

In March 2020 Ethridge filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court. He challenged his conviction on the ground that the state court should have suppressed the gun evidence.

The district court dismissed Ethridge’s habeas petition, ruling that Ethridge could not obtain habeas relief based on the denial of his suppression motion.

Under Stone v. Powell, a 1976 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, federal courts cannot grant habeas relief when state courts had already provided a “full and fair litigation” of Fourth Amendment claims.

In May 2020, Ethridge simultaneously filed a notice of reconsideration and a notice of appeal. He argued that the district court’s dismissal denied him the ability to argue that he did not have a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court.

“It is uncontroverted that the district court dismissed Ethridge’s petition … without first providing notice of the potential dismissal of the petition under Stone and affording Ethridge an opportunity to argue why Stone did not bar his Fourth Amendment claim,” Bianco wrote.

“Because Ethridge did not receive the requisite notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal of his habeas petition under Stone … we must remand the case to allow Ethridge a full and fair opportunity to present his arguments as to why Stone does not bar his Fourth Amendment claim,” Bianco wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035