Smith v. Lee

Smith v. Lee

Petitioner:	Arenzo Smith
Respondent:	William F. Lee
Case Number:	1:2010cv06941
Filed:	September 14, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Putnam
Presiding Judge:	John G. Koeltl
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 26, 2012	Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The petitioner, Arenzo Smith, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner was convicted in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, of one count of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39 1 . The petitioner challenges his conviction on two grounds. First, the petitioner alleges that the verdict was against the weight of the eviden ce. Second, the petitioner claims that the trial court's decision to permit the prosecution to show an allegedly unduly prejudicial video denied him a fair trial. For the reasons explained herein, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is deni ed. Because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition and closing this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/26/2012) (ja)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 26, 2012

Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The petitioner, Arenzo Smith, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner was convicted in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, of one count of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39 1 . The petitioner challenges his conviction on two grounds. First, the petitioner alleges that the verdict was against the weight of the eviden ce. Second, the petitioner claims that the trial court's decision to permit the prosecution to show an allegedly unduly prejudicial video denied him a fair trial. For the reasons explained herein, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is deni ed. Because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition and closing this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/26/2012) (ja)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Lee
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Arenzo Smith
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: William F. Lee
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?