Bonilla v. Burge, No. 1:2006cv04755 - Document 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, #98365 the Petition is hereby denied and the Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability because he has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 USC 2253(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is hereby requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/17/09) (cd) Modified on 12/17/2009 (eef).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x JOSE BONILLA, Petitioner, -v- No. 06 Civ. 4755 (LTS)(DF) JOHN BURGE, Superintendent, Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------x M EMORANDUM O PINION A ND O RDER A DOPTING R EPORT AND R ECOMMENDATION Petitioner Jose Bonilla ( Petitioner ) commenced this action on June 21, 2006, by filing a timely Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his conviction in Supreme Court, New York County, on one count of burglary in the second degree, as well as his sentence as a persistent violent felon to a prison term of twenty years to life. (Docket entry no. 1.) The case was assigned to the undersigned and referred to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. The Respondent submitted an opposition to the Petition, (docket entry nos. 7, 8), and Petitioner submitted a traverse in reply to the opposition, (docket entry no. 11). Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation, dated September 29, 2009 (the Report ), which recommends that the Petition should be denied and Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). (Docket entry no. 12.) Neither party has filed objections to the Report. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Petition, the Respondent s opposition BO N ILLA .R&R.AD O PT .W PD VER SIO N 12/17/09 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.