Tag Archives: 2255

Stranger in a Strange Land – Update for October 13, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

3RD CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT COLORABLE 2255 CLAIMS DEMAND A HEARING

burr221013Venue isn’t a very big deal in federal civil cases. But venue in a criminal trial – the right to be tried “in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” – is a 6th Amendment requirement so basic that it has its own jargon: vicinage.

And that makes sense. Just ask Aaron Burr. He got hauled all the way from Louisiana to stand trial in Richmond, Virginia, far from where the offense occurred and witnesses were located.  

Even now, criminal venue can get short shrift.  I once had a Philadelphia lawyer – who had just left the U.S. Attorney’s office – tell me over coffee that lack of venue in an indictment was no big deal because the issue was easily waived and hardly mattered anyway.  

He was wrong.

Dave and Judy Haisten ran a diversified business, selling misbranded pesticides and animal drugs, as well as a variety of counterfeit goods (which included DVDs). They sold some of the pesticides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The DVDs, however, were seized by customs officials in Cincinnati en route to the Haistens’ South Carolina home.

Dave and Judy were convicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 14 charges, including two counts of trafficking in counterfeit DVDs. They each got 12 months’ concurrent imprisonment on the first twelve counts (relating to pesticides and animal drugs). However, Dave got 78 months on the two DVD counts, concurrent with the other 12 counts (for a total sentence of 78 months). Judy got 60 months on her DVD counts, all running concurrently.

The Haistens believed that where the DVDs were concerned, they were strangers to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  They argued that venue for the DVD counts only existed in Ohio – where the shipment was intercepted – or South Carolina, where they kept their stash of counterfeit DVDs. But their trial attorney did not request a jury instruction on improper venue or move for acquittal on the DVD counts for lack of proper venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

bartsimpson221013The Haistens ultimately filed a joint § 2255 motion, arguing that their lawyer had been ineffective for failing to challenge venue on the DVD counts. The U.S. Attorney’s opposition to their § 2255 motion followed the typical government script: (1) the lawyer did not screw up; (2) the lawyer’s screw-up was done for strategic reasons; and (3) the lawyer’s screw-up did not prejudice the defendants.

The District Court denied Dave and Judy’s § 2255 motion, holding that any venue argument by their lawyer would have been futile because the government had proved venue for the DVD counts, based on a spreadsheet offered by the government that showed the Haistens had sent five DVDs to customers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Neither the government nor the district court obtained a declaration from the Haistens’ lawyer as to why he did not argue venue.

Last week, the 3rd Circuit reversed the denial, and sent the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. In so doing, the Court of Appeals provided a refreshing reminder that the standard for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing is to be kept low. 

On appeal, the government finally admitted that there was no venue for the DVD counts, because the seized DVDs at issue in those counts were not actually involved in sales to Eastern District of Pennsylvania customers. It argued nevertheless that their lawyer had a strategic reason for not raising venue, and anyway, Dave and Judy could not prove that their sentences would have changed.

The Circuit admitted that an attorney’s performance is not deficient if it is the product of a strategic litigation choice. But, it noted, “a district court must hold a hearing unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief… If a claim, when taken as true and evaluated in light of the existing record, states a colorable claim for relief… then further factual development in the form of a hearing is required.”

strategy221013The 3rd ruled that “colorable legal merit is distinct from actual merit. The threshold for a habeas petitioner’s claim to be colorable is low. The bottom line is, given the lack of evidence in the record about trial counsel’s strategic reasons for failing to object to improper venue on [the DVD counts], it is inconclusive whether the Haistens’ trial counsel performed deficiently. And while we take no definitive position on the merits of the Haistens’ arguments on the prejudice prong, their theory that they are prejudiced by having additional, improperly imposed felony convictions on their record is not so conclusively meritless as to have justified denying them a hearing.”

United States v. Haisten, Case No 21-1421, 2022 U.S.App.LEXIS 27771 (3d Cir., Oct. 5, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court’s Final Days Include Criminal Decisions – Update for June 20, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BIG CRIMINAL DECISIONS STILL PENDING WITH ONLY TWO WEEKS OF SCOTUS TERM LEFT

The Supreme Court held two opinion days last week, but the most-watched criminal cases – United States v. Taylor, Concepcion v. United States and Ruan v. United States – remain among the 18 opinions yet to be issued before the Court’s term ends on June 30.

scotus161130Most people expect the two “big” cases, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (a 2nd Amendment case) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (the possibly-leaked abortion decision) to happen on the last day. But Taylor, which concerns whether an attempted offense that would be a “crime of violence” for application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – the mandatory consecutive sentence for using a gun – is a “crime of violence” if it is only attempted but not completed – has been hanging around for six months since its December argument. Concepcion, which concerns proper resentencing considerations in First Step Section 404(b) resentencing, and Ruan, which considers physician liability under 21 USC 841(a), was argued in the Court’s February sitting.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that “the standard and ready explanation, of course, for why decisions in Taylor and Conception may be taking a long time is because the Justices are (perhaps deeply?) divided in these cases, and so we should expect multiple (and lengthy?) opinions. And, to add a bit of spicy speculation, I am inclined to guess that the delay is also partially a function of the Justices in these cases not being divided neatly along the “standard” ideological lines.”

rules201202The only case of interest to defendants last week was Kemp v. United States. In that case, petitioner Dexter Kemp filed a 28 USC 2255 motion in 2015. The District Court dismissed the motion as untimely, and Dix did not appeal. But three years later, he sought to reopen his 2255 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), rules which permit a court to reopen an otherwise final judgment if certain conditions are met. A 60(b)(1) motion has to allege that a mistake was made, and must be filed within a year, Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for any other just reason can be filed at any time, but is available only when the other grounds for relief specified in the Rule don’t apply.

Dex was right that the District Court had goofed on dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely. In a just world, his § 2255 should be reopened, and that would be that. But in the real world, it’s not that easy.

The Supreme Court held that a judge’s error of law is a “mistake” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1), meaning that Dex’s motion fit under Rule 60(b)(1). Subject to the Rule’s one-year limitations period, Dex’s motion was late and had to be dismissed as untimely.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Any (spicy?) speculations about why SCOTUS has not yet decided Taylor or Conception, two little sentencing cases? (June 13, 2022)

Kemp v. United States, Case No. 21-5726, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2835 (June 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Procedure Matters… Innocence? Not So Much – Update for March 24, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

IN § 2255 CASES, PROCEDURE MATTERS

procedure220324Over the past three weeks, Russia has been reminded of the truth of General Omar Bradley’s old saw that “amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.” Likewise, two cases handed down last week underscore the truth that inmates talk substance, judges talk procedure.”

DeMarko Collins pled guilty to being a felon in possession under 18 USC § 922(g)(1). DeMarko’s presentence report determined he had two prior felony convictions for crimes of violence, including a Missouri 2nd-degree robbery, which enhanced his Guidelines advisory sentencing range under USSG § 2K1.1.

Five months before DeMarko’s sentencing hearing, a divided 8th Circuit panel held in United States v. Bell that Missouri 2nd-degree robbery was not a crime of violence, but DeMarko’s attorney goofed and did not cite the decision in opposing the § 2K2.1 enhancement. The district court granted the government’s motion for an upward variance, and sentenced DeMarko to 216 months.

DeMarko appealed his sentence. Relying on Bell, he argued the § 2K2.1 enhancement should not have applied. But while his appeal was pending, the 8th Circuit en banc overruled Bell and held that a Missouri 2nd-degree robbery is a violent felony after all. Because of that, Demarko lost his appeal.

stupidlawyr191202DeMarko then filed a § 2255 post-conviction motion, arguing that his lawyer should have cited Bell, which had been controlling authority and good law at the time of his sentencing. The district court denied the § 2255, finding that even if DeMarko was right that his lawyer should have raised Bell at sentencing, “he cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced by” the error.

Last week, the 8th Circuit agreed, holding that by the time DeMarko on “direct appeal cited Bell in challenging his § 2K2.1 enhancement based on a Missouri 2nd-degree robbery conviction, Bell had been overruled… and this prior conviction was once again a predicate crime of violence under the Guidelines. Strickland prejudice ‘focuses on the question whether counsel’s deficient performance renders the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair…’ DeMarko was not deprived of a substantive or procedural right to which the law entitles him, so he ‘suffered no legally cognizable prejudice’.”

Meanwhile, in the 9th Circuit, Cesar Gonzalez filed a 28 USC § 2244 application for permission to file a second § 2255 motion. He wanted to argue that his 18 USC § 924(c) conviction for having a gun in furtherance of a crime of violence was invalid because his predicate crime – racketeering – was no longer a categorical crime of violenceunder a new rule of constitutional law announced in the Supreme Court’s United States v. Davis decision.

Last week, the 9th Circuit shot Cesar down, finding that his new Davis argument was not “previously unavailable” as required by 28 USC § 2255(h)(2).

When Davis was handed down, Cesar had filed his § 2255 motion, and the government had responded. Cesar, however, had not yet filed his reply. The 9th Circuit ruled that to show the argument was “previously unavailable” to him, he had to show “that the real-world circumstances that he faced prevented him, as a practical matter, from asserting his claim based on a new rule of law in his initial habeas proceeding.”

The Circuit said it “recognized that pro se prisoners face unique difficulties when litigating habeas relief or anything else, and that language barriers, as Cesar cited in his case, add to those difficulties.” However, the 9th ruled, “nothing in the text or context of AEDPA‘s previously-unavailable-claim requirement suggesting that this limited exception to the otherwise broad prohibition against filing second or successive habeas proceedings was intended to be applied subjectively.”

innocent210504The 9th concluded that Cesar could show that his new Davis argument was unavailable during his initial § 2255, where Davis issued shortly before Cesar filed his reply brief and a few months before the § 2255 was decided. Cesar had the facts that he needed for his claim, the Circuit held, and no systemic or external barrier prevented him from presenting his claim in his initial habeas proceeding.

So it did not matter that Cesar stood convicted of a § 924(c) offense unlawfully, because a hypothetical reasonable inmate would have tried to raise Davis in the nearly-completed § 2255 proceeding.

Substance? Who cares about substance when procedure triumphs?

Collins v. United States, Case No. 20-3662, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6725 (8th Cir., March 16, 2022)

Gonzalez v. United States, Case No 20-71709, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6943 (9th Cir., March 17, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Chewing on a Procedural Pretzel – Update for January 27, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

NO PERMISSION NEEDED FOR AN APPEAL FOR WHICH PERMISSION NEEDED

“Huh?” you ask. No wonder.

This problem has happened to inmates before, especially during pandemic lockdowns. In 2015, Serwan Mizori filed a 28 USC § 2255 motion arguing that his lawyer had rendered ineffective representation. The motion languished for four years before his court got around to denying it.

pretzel2230127Once the court acted, Serwan had 60 days under the rules to file his notice of appeal (NOA). But as luck would have it, he was confined in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) for some prison rules violation right about then, and had no access to stamps or a law library. He got out of the SHU about two weeks after the NOA was due.

Serwan filed an NOA and a motion for leave to file it late under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). The district court turned him down, so Serwan appealed its denial of his right to file the NOA. To turn this into even more of a procedural pretzel, the 6th Circuit first took up the question of whether he needed a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal denial of his motion to late file the NOA.

Section 2253(c)(1)(A) of Title 28 provides that unless a circuit justice or judge issues a COA, an appeal may not be taken from “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process” issued by a court. A COA is a ruling that the issue to be appealed is one that is subject to reasonable dispute, one that “jurists of reason” would find debatable.

Last week the Circuit ruled Serwan could argue his procedural motion without a COA. The Court said that for COA purposes, a “final order… disposes of the merits of a habeas corpus proceeding.”

rules201202Here, the district court’s two-page order denying Serwan’s motion under Rule 4(a)(5) “plainly did not dispose of the merits of his 2255 motion,” the Circuit said. “The district court’s July 2019 order denying the 2255 motion had already done that; and the order that Mizori seeks to appeal now said nothing about the merits of his underlying § 2255 motion.”

Thus, Serwan could proceed with appealing the denial of his late-filed notice of appeal without a COA. If he wins that, then he will require a COA.

No wonder lawyers make big bucks.

Mizori v. United States, Case No, 19-2433, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1639 (6th Cir., Jan. 20, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Fecklessness Is No Legal Strategy, 1st Circuit Says – Update for November 15, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SOMETIMES THE DIFFERENT DRUM IS POUNDING OUT THE WRONG BEAT

diffdrummer211115Sandy Flores-Rivera was one of 46 people charged with a drug-trafficking conspiracy. At trial, most of the evidence against Sandy and her co-defendants came from three cooperating witnesses, all of whom fingered Sandy and helped the government present non-testimonial evidence.

After the jury returned guilty verdicts against Sandy and the other defendants, the government belatedly disclosed some pretrial documents created by a cooperating witness. One was a letter to the lead prosecutor, in which the witness described himself as the government’s “best cooperator: “I promised you to do everything you said and I have done it to the point that you know how this has gotten, we have more than we expected, more evidence and more strength for the case…” Another document consisted of notes that the cooperating witness kept of conversations he had with other cooperators while they were in prison together, in which he had encouraged them to testify. Finally, the government disclosed a note showing the FBI knew the cooperating witnesses were talking to each other in jail.

Of course, the government’s failure to disclose this evidence – which suggested the cooperating witnesses were singing a version of the “truth” they thought would be most pleasing to the authorities who controlled their fates – was a slam-dunk violation of the constitutional requirement of disclosure enshrined in Brady v. Maryland.

[Remember Brady? Brush up on it here]

Sandy and the other defendants moved for a new trial under Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure due to the Brady violation, but the district court turned them down. On appeal, the other defendants again raised the Brady violation, and this time someone listened: the 1st Circuit granted those other defendants new trials because the court found it was “reasonably probable that the impeachment evidence would have caused the jury to acquit” them.

lawyerjoke180807Sandy’s lawyer, however, marched to a different drummer: he didn’t bother raising the Brady issue in Sandy’s appellate brief, but rather argued a couple of loser claims that hadn’t even been preserved in the lower court record. Those issues ran into what the 1st Circuit called “a stone wall of controlling precedent.” In fact, the Circuit even pointed out in amazement that Sandy’s counsel had joined in the new trial motion at the district court but inexplicably “did not renew the argument despite his clear awareness of his ability to adopt a co-appellant’s arguments in a consolidated case… since he reserved his right to do so in Sandy’s opening brief.”

After losing her appeal while her co-defendants won theirs, Sandy filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 claiming her attorney rendered ineffective assistance on appeal. Last week, the 1st Circuit agreed.

The Circuit said the government’s case against Sandy “depended quite heavily on the largely uncorroborated testimony of the three cooperators. Hence, she would have prevailed on the Brady issue just like her co-defendants had she raised the issue. And for that reason, she establishes prejudice under Strickland.”

Appellate counsel performs deficiently, the Circuit said, when he or she “ignor[es] issues that are clearly stronger than those presented.” Forgoing an argument is not a reasonable strategic decision when there is no downside to objecting to an error or when the omitted argument would not “detract from” but would rather “build upon” another challenge.

feckless211115“Here,” the 1st ruled, “any reasonable attorney handling Flores-Rivera’s appeal would have known of the Brady claim’s availability even after a cursory review of the district court docket and the arguments offered by Flores-Rivera’s co-defendants… Appellate counsel opted to forgo an obviously serious, preserved Brady claim in favor of two dubious plain-error challenges, one of which was foreclosed by binding precedent. That choice resembles rejecting a lifeboat in favor of two lily pads… Fecklessness is not a strategy.”

Flores-Rivera v. United States, Case No. 18-1963, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32404 (1st Cir. Oct 29, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Going Back to the Well – Update for September 24, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

PROCEDURAL BOOTSTRAPPING

well210924Back to the Well Once Too Often: Federal prisoners who lose their 28 USC § 2255 motions sometimes resort to filing motions to set aside the § 2255 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), as a clever means of getting around seeking permission for a second or successive § 2255 under 28 USC § 2244. It seldom works.

A few fun facts: First, although a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 challenges a criminal conviction or sentence, the § 2255 proceeding itself is considered to be a civil action. That is how a movant even has the option to employ Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), or any other Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, for that matter. Second, Rule 60(b) – which governs motions to set aside the judgment – is usable after a final judgment is rendered, although that some time constraints and designated bases for invoking the Rule that are beyond today’s discussion. Third, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act – known as the AEDPA – puts severe restrictions on prisoners bringing more than a single § 2255 motion without meeting some pretty high standards (a new retroactive rule of constitutional law or some killer new evidence) and getting advance approval from a United States Court of Appeals under 28 USC § 2244. These restrictions can run headlong into a Rule 60(b) motion.

Desmond Rouse and several co-defendants were convicted based on what they called “outdated, false, misleading, and inaccurate” forensic medical evidence, testimony that had since been recanted, and juror racism. Having failed to win their § 2255 motions, they filed a motion to set aside the § 2255 judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing that a “new rule” announced in Peña-Rodriguez v Colorado would now let them “investigate whether their convictions were based upon overt [juror] racism,” and the witness recantations showed they were actually innocent.

Last week, the 8th Circuit rejected the Rule 60(b) motion as a second-or-successive § 2255 motion.

aedpa210504The Circuit held that newly discovered evidence in support of a claim previously denied and a subsequent change in substantive law “fall squarely within the class of Rule 60(b) claims to which the Supreme Court applied § 2244(b) restrictions in Gonzalez v. Crosby back in 2005. The requirement in § 2244(b)(3) that courts of appeals first certify compliance with § 2244(b)(2) before a district court can accept a motion for second or successive relief applies to Rule 60(b)(6) motions that include second or successive claims. Our prior denial of authorization did not sanction Appellants’ repackaging of their claims in Rule 60(b)(6) motions to the district court. The motions are improper attempts to circumvent the procedural requirements of AEDPA.”

Back to the Well is Just Fine: In the 7th Circuit, however, a prisoner who filed reconsideration on denial of his First Step Act Section 404 motion chalked up a procedural win. Within the 14 days allowed for filing a notice of appeal after his district court denied him a sentence reduction, William Hible filed a motion asking the district judge to reconsider his denial. The judge denied the motion, and Bill filed his notice of appeal, again within 14 days of the denial. The government argued the notice was late, because a motion for reconsideration doesn’t stop the appeal deadline from running.

Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with Bill. The 7th observed that while the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lack any parallel to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59, the Supreme Court “has held repeatedly that motions to reconsider in criminal cases extend the time for appeal. But under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, only Criminal Rules 35 and 36 offer any prospect of modification by the district judge. Rule 36 is limited to the correction of clerical errors. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(5), a motion under Rule 35 does not affect the time for appeal.

 timewaits210924The government argued these rules govern sentence reduction proceedings, but the 7th disagreed. The Circuit said the First Step Act authorizes reduction of a sentence long after the time allowed by Rule 35. Thus, “the First Step Act’s authorization to reduce a prisoner’s sentence is external to Rule 35,” so the provision in Rule 4(b)(5) about the effect of Rule 35 motions does not apply here. A reconsideration motion in a 404 proceeding thus stops the running of the time to appeal, and Hible’s notice of appeal was timely.

Rouse v. United States, Case No. 20-2007, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27795 (8th Cir., September 16, 2021)

United States v. Hible, Case No. 20-1824, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27548 (7th Cir., September 14, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Too Early, Too Late – Update for September 15, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

timewaits200325Two decisions last week remind us that timing is key.

Julio Cardenas filed a 28 USC § 2255 motion arguing that his defense attorney had rendered ineffective assistance to him. In fact, he had no idea how ineffective counsel had been (and was continuing to be).

Julio lost his direct appeal, and the Supreme Court then denied certiorari. Julio filed for Supreme Court rehearing, and that was denied, too.

Fast forward a year. Julio’s attorney filed his § 2255 motion, but did so a year after denial of Supreme Court rehearing. But courts have uniformly held that the deadline for filing a § 2255 motion is really a year after the Supreme Court first denies certiorari, not a year after the later date when it denies rehearing whether its earlier denial of cert was correct. As a result, Julio’s § 2255 was filed 47 days past the date it was due under 28 USC § 2255(f)(1).

Julio asked his district court to accept it anyway under a doctrine called equitable tolling. A prisoner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing. Equitable tolling is warranted only in “rare and exceptional circumstances,” as the courts like to say.

Last week, the 5th Circuit said Julio didn’t have such circumstances here. The 5th said Julio’s counsel simply messed up. His lawyer admitted he now knew that a “petition for rehearing on a denial of certiorari on direct appeal does not toll the AEDPA time limit. All I can say in my defense is the concept is so counterintuitive that it did not even occur to me to check or research the question.”

The Circuit said Julio’s lawyer’s mistake was “precisely the kind of case that does not warrant equitable tolling…”

worm210913Timing also played a role in a second 5th Circuit decision last week. Leondus Garrigan filed an 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release motion, but he sent his request to the warden two weeks after filing the motion in district court. After his court denied the compassionate release motion, Leo filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing out that his administrative remedies were now exhausted, and the court could rule on the motion.

The district court denied the reconsideration, and last week, the 5th agreed: 

The primary basis on which Lionel justified reconsideration,” the Circuit ruled, “was a purported ‘manifest error of law.’ But there was no legal error in the underlying judgment. Because he filed his motion in the district court before the warden received his request, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. To be sure, after Garrigan’s first motion was denied without prejudice, he successfully exhausted. But it is irrelevant that he achieved exhaustion in the intervening period between the denial and his motion for reconsideration – he was required to properly exhaust before filing the motion. The district court did not have discretion to excuse his failure to do so.

United States v. Garrett, Case No 20-61083, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27214 (5th Cir., Sept. 9, 2021)

United States v. Cardenas, Case No 18-40790, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26910 (5th Cir., Sept. 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Sure You’re Innocent, But WHY Are You Innocent? – Update for July 12, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

JUST SAYING IT DOESN’T MAKE IT SO

smile210712Sam Abram had a brief but prolific career as a bank robber, an occupation that Sam found to be more rewarding if he employed a smile and a gun rather than a smile alone. When the FBI nabbed him, Sam was convicted of the robberies and – for good measure – as a convicted felon in possession of a gun, a violation of 18 USC § 922(g).

Sam was convicted, lost on appeal, and then lost again on a post-conviction 28 USC § 2255 motion. Several years later, the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States that to be convicted of being a felon-in-possession, the defendant had to actually know he was a member of a class of people prohibited from possessing a gun. In Sam’s case, Rehaif said he had to know he was a convicted felon at the time he possessed the gun.

Generally, a § 2255 motion is the only way to mount a post-conviction challenge to an unlawful conviction or sentence, but 2255 motions are pretty much one-to-a-customer. If you have already filed one § 2255 motion, you must get permission from the Court of Appeals to file a second one, and getting permission is tough. Under 28 USC § 2244, you must either show you have discovered new evidence you couldn’t have feasibly found before – evidence that would have been a home run with the jury – or that the Supreme Court had handed down a constitutional ruling made retroactive on appellate review.

Rehaif was a reinterpretation of a statute that virtually all of the Federal circuits had gotten wrong, but because it was a decision of statutory construction rather than a decision that 18 USC § 922(g) was unconstitutional, Sam couldn’t get leave to file a new § 2255 motion.

savings180618But § 2255 has a “savings clause,” § 2255(e), which lets people in Sam’s position file a traditional 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus petition when a § 2255 motion “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” And a § 2255 motion is “inadequate or ineffective” if “(1) the § 2241 petition raises a claim that is based on a retroactively applicable decision; (2) the claim was previously foreclosed by circuit law; and (3) that retroactively applicable decision establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.”

Sam filed a § 2241 petition, arguing that his § 922(g) conviction should be thrown out because his indictment never alleged he knew he had been convicted of a prior felony, and, by the way, he was actually innocent in that he didn’t know about his convicted-felon status. The district court shot down his § 2241 petition, and last week, the 5th Circuit agreed.

The Circuit said that Sam had to provide some evidence or argument supporting that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense. That requirement is “particularly important in the Rehaif context,” the 5th said, because “[c]onvicted felons typically know they’re convicted felons” (a Kavanaugh quip from last month’s Supreme Court decision, Greer v. United States). The Circuit said, “if a defendant was in fact a felon, it will be difficult for him to carry the burden… of showing a reasonable probability that, but for the Rehaif error, the outcome of the district court proceedings would have been different.”

innocent210712All Sam did was assert he was actually innocent, which was nothing more than parroting the standard for a “savings clause” § 2241 petition. Where a prisoner just does that – without providing some evidence or argument supporting his claim that he was unaware of his relevant status – then, the Circuit ruled, “he has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to proceed under § 2255(e)’s savings clause.” And thus, a substantive defect in the prisoner’s showing becomes a procedural defect as well.

Abram v. McConnell, Case No. 20-30199, 2021 US App. LEXIS 20174 (5th Cir. July 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Procedure Talks, Substance Walks – Update for June 1, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DOES INNOCENCE MATTER? NOT MUCH.

I had a recent email exchange with a guy who, years after his conviction, believes he has the golden bullet to convince his judge that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. When I pointed out he had no procedural route for raising the argument, given that he’s known about the issue for years, he responded that all he has to do is convince the judge of the righteousness of his claim, and the procedure will take care of itself.

innocent210504But procedure never takes care of itself. That is to say, procedure rules over substance. Years ago, Professor Henry J. Friendly complained that habeas corpus procedure had gotten so hidebound that a petitioner’s claim that he or she was actually innocent simply didn’t matter. The title of the law review article said it all: Is Innocence Irrelevant: Collateral Attack on Criminal Judgments. Even after Friendly’s now-famous 1970 article, the Supreme Court was unable to untether actual innocence from procedure: in Herrera v. Collins, it held that “a claim of ‘actual innocence’ is not itself a constitutional claim, but instead a gateway through which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim considered on the merits.  In other words, a prisoner who is actually innocent must show a constitutional violation to obtain relief.  As dissenting Justice Blackmun complained, the only principle this position espouses is “the principle that habeas relief should be denied whenever possible.”

Two cases this week reminded the defendants that the righteousness of their causes paled in significance next to the “angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin” arguments over procedure. In an 11th Circuit case, Sandchase Cody (we’ll call him “Sandy”) initially won his § 2255 motion, having proven to the sentencing court that some of his prior state convictions should not count as Armed Career Criminal Act predicates.

But his victory turned to ashes at resentencing. Initially, Sandy had been sentenced to 294 months for drug distribution and a concurrent 294 months for the ACCA charge. But instead of resentencing on both counts, the judge merely cut his ACCA count to 120 months – the statutory max without the ACCA – keeping the 294 months on the drug count.

angels170726“Unfair!” Sandy cried, apparently laboring under the misappreciation that fairness actually mattered. He appealed, arguing he should have been resentenced on both counts. But because the appeal only challenged the resentencing, not his favorable § 2255 decision, Sandy did not ask for a certificate of appealability (COA). He argued to the 11th Circuit that because he was appealing the new sentence – and not the § 2255 decision vacating the prior sentence – a COA was not necessary.

Background: Under 28 USC § 2253, a prisoner may not appeal a “final order in a proceeding under § 2255” unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable judges could debate whether the prisoner’s claim has merit. The intent of the COA procedure is to reduce frivolous appeals, just another way that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has strangled habeas corpus.

Last week, the 11th Circuit dismissed Sandy’s appeal, holding that the COA requirement applies “not only to an appeal from the final order in a proceeding under section 2255 but also to an appeal from an amended criminal judgment, to the extent it raises section 2255 issues.” By contrast, the Circuit said, direct appeal matters that arise after the § 2255 proceeding — for example, an argument that the district court misapplied the sentencing guidelines at a prisoner’s resentencing — do not require a COA. But Sandy complained in his appeal that § 2255 required he get a complete resentencing, not just a resentencing on one count. That was an argument, the 11th said, over the remedies authorized by § 2255. Thus, it was a § 2255 appeal, and it required a COA.

It seems a trifling point, but procedure prevented his argument from being heard.

In the 6th Circuit, on the other hand, the appeals court ruled that a piece of arcane procedure worked for Edres Montgomery. Edres got resentenced under First Step § 404, the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act. But at resentencing, everyone – including Edres’s lawyer – assumed Edres’s Criminal History range was VI (that’s “6” for the Latin-challenged among us).

But it was only a V (that’s a “5”), Edres discovered afterward, so he appealed. The government argued Edres waived his right to appeal it by not objecting at sentencing. This gave the 6th a chance to expound on waiver, forfeiture, and invited error.

A “defendant can only waive a right that he knows of and actively abandons,” the 6th said. When a claim is waived, it is unappealable. “Forfeiture is at the other end of the spectrum… the passive failure to make a timely assertion of a right.” If a defendant forfeits a claim, “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) allows us to consider such unpreserved arguments for plain error.”

errorA160425In the middle is “invited error”, where the defendant contributes in some way to the district court’s error without intentionally relinquishing his rights. Here, Edres invited the error when his own lawyer agreed Edres’s Criminal History was VI. This left Edres “more responsible for the district court’s error than when he merely forfeits an argument, but he had not made the conscious choice to waive the argument.” Thus the appeals court said, “the consequences fall in between those for forfeiture and waiver… [and while] we do not review invited errors as a matter of course, but we are also not foreclosed from reviewing them; instead, we review for plain error when “the interests of justice demand” it.

The Court said that under a Rule 52 “plain error” analysis, the mistake should be corrected.

United States v. Cody, Case No. 19-11915, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16019 (11th Cir. May 28, 2021)

United States v. Montgomery, Case No. 20-1201, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15382 (6th Cir. May 24, 2021)
– Thomas L. Root

That ‘Teague’ Thing? We Were Just Kidding – Update for May 25, 2021

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BAD (BUT UNSURPRISING) NEWS ON RETROACTIVITY

sadprison210525How would you like to be convicted of a federal crime with a long sentence, only to have the Supreme Court hold well after the fact that something about your trial was unconstitutional? How would you like that?

That’s an easy one. You would not like to be convicted.  Period. Whether it was done constitutionally or not. No one wants to be convicted. So that was a stupid question.

But over 50,000 people are convicted of federal crimes every year. And they don’t like it, either. They like it even less if, say, if the government grabbed your cellphone location data without a warrant, or you were convicted by a jury vote of 9-2, or the judge jacked up your statutory minimum because he thought your revolver was really a machine gun.

All of those were deemed to be unconstitutional.  The cellphone location data? Carpenter v. United States, 2018. Less-than-unanimous jury? Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020. A nonjury finding jacking your mandatory minimum? Alleyne v. United States, 2013.

The problem is that if your conviction was final before these decisions established that you were constitutionally wronged, you have no right to ask the court for a do-over. That is not unless the decisions are declared to be retroactive, which means that cases like yours that are already final may reopen the issues on collateral review (habeas corpus).

watershed210525Thirty-two years ago, the Supreme Court explained in Teague v. Lane that decisions holding substantive criminal laws to be unconstitutional (such as the Armed Career Criminal Act residual clause in Johnson v. United States) are always retroactive to cases on § 2255 review. However, Teague held, a case in which a criminal procedure was declared unconstitutional (like searches in Carpenter or a less-than-unanimous jury in Ramos) is only retroactive on habeas review only if the new rule was “watershed,” “bedrock” or “essential.”

So what kind of ruling would be “watershed?” Prisoners and defense attorneys have looked for that elusive “watershed” decision for three decades without success. Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case asking whether last year’s Ramos rule on unanimous juries had to be unanimous (a holding which affected Louisiana and Oregon only) was retroactive. The Court ruled 6-3 that Ramos was not a “watershed” rule. More important, the Court gave up pretending that anything could ever be a “watershed” rule.

“This Court has repeatedly stated that a decision announcing a new rule of criminal procedure ordinarily does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. “Indeed, in the 32 years since Teague underscored that principle, this Court has announced many important new rules of criminal procedure. But the Court has not applied any of those new rules retroactively on federal collateral review… And for decades before Teague, the Court also regularly declined to apply new rules retroactively, including on federal collateral review… At this point, some 32 years after Teague, we think the only candid answer is that… no new rules of criminal procedure can satisfy the watershed exception. We cannot responsibly continue to suggest otherwise to litigants and courts… It is time — probably long past time — to make explicit what has become increasingly apparent to bench and bar over the last 32 years: New procedural rules do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The watershed exception is moribund.”

squarepeg210525So prisoners, at last, can give up trying to pound round constitutional procedure decisions into Teague’s square holes. The Supreme Court has said what a lot of us suspected ever since Apprendi was declared non-retroactive. Teague’s promise is now and always has been an illusion: there simply are no watershed decisions.

Edwards v. Vannoy, Case No 19-5807, 2021 US LEXIS 2584 (May 17, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root