Case ID: f-appx_132/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jaythan KENDRICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles GREINER, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-0433-PR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 27, 2005.
    
      Monica R. Jacobson, Alvy & Jacobson, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Nadja Schulz, Assistant District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Assistant District Attorney, Richard A. Brown, District, Attorney of Queens County, on the brief), Office of the District Attorney of Queens' County, Kew Gardens,* NY, for Appellees, of counsel.
    Present: OAKES, CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

Petitioner Jaythan Kendrick appeals from the memorandum, judgment, and order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2003, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Kendrick v. Greiner, 296 F.Supp.2d 348 (E.D.N.Y.2003).

On February 15, 1996, petitioner was convicted in New York State Supreme Court principally of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of an elderly woman in Queens, New York. Petitioner urges on appeal that the District Court erroneously rejected two asserted grounds for habeas relief. First, petitioner argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment rights by an unduly suggestive pretrial lineup that tainted pretrial and in-court identifications of petitioner. Second, petitioner asserts that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court permitted cross-examination of petitioner regarding pending criminal charges.

We have considered all of petitioner’s arguments and find them without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated in the memorandum, judgment, and order of the District Court, we AFFIRM.