Opinion ID: 3014041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: only one to three years’ imprisonment,

Text: which is less than the five years necessary In 1993, a New York state grand jury to disqualify an alien from § 212(c) relief. indicted Ponnapula, along with several Accordingly, Ponnapula reasonably other defendants, for grand larceny in the believed that even if he were convicted of first degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 155.42, and a felony after trial he would still likely be falsifying business records in the first eligible for hardship relief from degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 175.10. deportation pursuant to former § 212(c). Essentially the offense involved a In reliance on this advice, Ponnapula fraudulent application submitted to the decided to turn down the misdemeanor Bank of India for a loan to generate offer and proceeded to trial. On December working capital, secured by a valuable 20, 1994, he was convicted of both counts parking lot located near LaGuardia Airport in the indictment. He was sentenced to the in New York City. The loan application minimum term of imprisonment— one to was submitted by a group headed by three years. Ponnapula’s brother, Dr. P.S. Prasad. Prasad and his assistant, Vijay Dandapani, The advice of Ponnapula’s counsel, prepared a loan application in the name of and his reliance thereon, is easily a shell company, listed Ponnapula as its understandable, for the evidence at trial 4 barely established criminality. Indeed, while the loan application contained false Ponnapula’s participation was so limited statements, the bank was well secured, and that the trial judge set aside the jury’s recovered $1.35 million of the $1.9 million guilty verdict and dismissed the indictment loan amount when it ultimately sold the as to Ponnapula, for reasons chronicled in parking lot. However, the order setting the margin.2 It is also noteworthy that aside the conviction was eventually reversed on appeal and the conviction reinstated. 2 According to Judge Carruthers: Upon remand, the trial court imposed The People presented no the mandatory minimum term of one to evidence that Murali participated three years imprisonment on this New in any way in the inclusion of any York State “B” felony, see N.Y. Penal false statements contained in the Law § 155.42, but the trial judge loan application, or that Murali recommended to the New York State knew that the loan documents Corrections Department that it “consider contained any false [defendant] for an early release program representations. The People’s that encompasses work releas e .” most important witness, Ponnapula then filed a petition for habeas Dandapani, testified that M urali relief in the United States District Court was not informed of for the Southern District of New York. misrepresentations that Prasad ordered Dandapani and Shetty to include in the loan application and signing. Moreover, there was no the supporting documents. Murali evidence that Murali signed the could not have learned from the documents with knowledge that documents themselves that Prasad Prasad intended to misapply the was deceiving the bank. The proceeds of the loan . . . . evidence shows that Murali never . . . . [T]he People’s key had a chance to examine them. witness, Vijay Dandapani, Thus, Murali was in no position to testified unequivocally that Murali detect even the glaring never knew of the misrepresentations concerning his misrepresentations made to the finances that were contained in bank in the loan application. The the loan applications. remainder of the evidence With respect to the documents presented by the People simply that Murali signed at the closing, fails to support the contention that Dandapani and Krasner, the Murali was a knowing participant bank’s attorney, each testified that in any misrepresentations made by Murali only glanced at the papers, Prasad or his assistants with but did not read them before regard to the loan. 5 While concluding that the evidence had 2002, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, been legally sufficient to sustain Ponnapula filed the habeas petition that is petitioner’s conviction of a larceny the subject of this appeal. involving more than one million dollars,