Bell v. Ercole

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a pro se petitioner’s “submissions should be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that the excessive sentence claim was unexhausted because the petitioner’s appellate briefs presented the claim in terms of state law and invoked the power of a New York appellate court to reduce sentences in the interest of justice
• although petitioner was relocated to different prison after filing petition, court deemed respondent proper because named respondent had custody of petitioner at time he filed petition, petitioner was pro se, and the State did not challenge court’s jurisdiction
• “[Petitioner] contends that his sentence of fourteen years of imprisonment was excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. To the extent that this claim relies on state law principles, it is not cognizable on federal habeas review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).