Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02607/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02607-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis J. Bennett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2607

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dennis J. Bennett, also known as *

Jerry Dennis Andrews, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2006 

Filed: September 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Dennis J. Bennett challenges the district court’s1

denials of (1) his motion for reconsideration of his motion for a new trial, and (2) his

motion for a hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Bennett’s motion for reconsideration of his new-trial motion because the

Appellate Case: 05-2607 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2006 Entry ID: 2091325
-2-

court correctly determined that Bennett would not have been entitled to relief on his

new-trial motion, even if it had been timely filed, as it was based solely upon

ineffective-assistance claims which could more appropriately be addressed in a

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Bennett’s request for a hearing on his ineffective-assistance claims, because

Bennett was not prejudiced by the denial of a hearing. Cf. United States v. Holy Bear,

624 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1980) (appellate court’s failure to address incompetency

of counsel on direct appeal does not prejudice defendant, who may raise constitutional

ineffective-assistance claim in § 2255 motion, and in such proceeding offer evidence

to supplement record).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2607 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2006 Entry ID: 2091325