The facts of the case are that the Petitioner; Edward Perry, shot and killed David Simmons. The gun used by the Petitioner was recovered by the Suffolk County Police Department, Homicide Squad, the same day that the Petitioner signed a confession in admission of guilt (Justia, 2018). The police charged Perry with one count of Murder in the Second Degree as prescribed for by New York Penal Law. At the plea proceedings that were scheduled for March 16, 2006, Perry while in the presence of his counsel pled guilty to Manslaughter in the First Degree. In his testament, the Petitioner confirmed that on September 13, 2015-shot and killed David Simmons. However, the petitioner noted that his ultimate intention was to cause Simmons serious physical injury. Additionally, Perry acknowledged that he was implicit to the possible consequences of his plea, thereby waiving his rights to a fair trial by jury of his peers. The key issue for determination in this case regards the elements of Manslaughter in the first degree. Subsequently, the case proceeded to sentencing as the petitioner had expressly waived his right to have the prosecutor call witnesses and evidence to support their allegation. Unexpectedly, on the material day for sentencing, Perry file pro se motion intend on withdrawing his guilty plea, further requesting to replace his counsel. Perry’s argument faulted his counsel’s advice, citing that he was misadvised by his attorney, but upon further reflection now remembers that he had sustained head injury in 1993, in a car accident and had ever since been on Cylert, a medication given to patients with Attention Deficit Disorder. A twist to this development was evident when the Petitioner claimed to have been off medication when he murdered Simmons. Unsuccessful in his request to withdraw the guilty plea, Perry had to settle for the sentencing. The Judge presiding over the case; Andrew Crecca, noted that the Court had judiciously examined the facts presented in the case and had earlier conducted all the necessary procedures to ensure that the Petitioner understood the veracity of his claim, together with the implications, and was fully satisfied that the Petitioner was not under duress when entering a plea of guilt and for that he must accept the Court ruling. Perry was granted a custodian sentence of 25 years, plus five years’ post-sentence supervision. Perry filed a petition in the Appellate Court on the grounds that the earlier Court had denied his right to withdraw a plea of guilt and also sought relief from the Court with the notion that his trial counsel was ineffective. Correspondingly, the Petitioner sought the Court’s indulgence in entertaining his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Under common law, appeals requesting for a writ of habeas corpus are only entertained if and when the petitioner exhausts all the available remedies in the State court. Picard v. Connor serves as reference for the claim of the exhaustion requirement ( Hawkins, 2019 ). The court of appeal was satisfied with the High Court ruling and based its judgement on the differential standards prescribed under AEDPA that provides for an application of a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of individuals that are in custody in situations that confirm a violation of Federal laws and in scenarios where a decision was made by the Court that was based on an unreasonable determination of facts. Perry’s case entailed a criminal charge, where he had been accused of intentional shooting of Simmons, with the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The elements for a murder charge must be proved by the prosecution, to be determined by the Court for their validity. For one to be convicted of murder, the Court must be satisfied that the accused had an evil intent for which they acted upon, causing the death of another. Perry was categorical in his assertion that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm to Simmons. He, however, made followed through his intentions by shooting Simmons, his act resulting in the death of his Victim. Understandably, the Court was convinced beyond reason doubt that Perry murdered Simmons, though recognizes that his original intention was to cause harm to Simmons. Therefore, given that his actions had resulted in the death of another, the New York Penal Law § 125.25 charges him with Murder in the Second Degree, prescribing a minimum of 23 years, plus five years’ post-sentence supervision.
Conclusion
The High Court of New York was safe in their sentencing of Edward Perry as the elements prescribed for in the law for murder in the Second degree had been fully identified. The Courts decision to decline Perry’s petition for withdrawal of the guilty plea was equally justified, as the Petitioner was fully aware of the repercussions of his actions and had received prior counsel on the legal implication of his decision. Also, the Court of Appel was right to deny Perry’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, citing that the petitioner had not exhausted all of the options provided by the State and the fact that the High Court charged him with murder in the Second degree affirms that it had fully accounted for the fact that the Petitioner was off his medication on the material day.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Justia. (2018, January 18). Perry v. People of the State of New York, No. 2:2009cv04557 - Document 10 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). Retrieved from Justia Us Law: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2:2009cv04557/297380/10/
Hawkins, D. (2019). Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus. Wisconsin Law Journal . Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/8c111d7602acdb279d8ed2f36a6504fe/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026554
