Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20060810_0000772.ETN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 18:08:10
Document Index: 521746821

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

FindACase™ | United States v. Thurman
This Court must vacate and set aside the sentence if it finds"the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the Court is to consider initially whether the face of the motion itself, together with the annexed exhibits and prior proceedings in the case, reveals the movant is not entitled to relief. If it plainly appears the movant is not entitled to relief, the Court may summarily dismiss the § 2255 motion under Rule 4.
To warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because of constitutional error, the error must be one of constitutional magnitude that had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the proceedings. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (citation omitted)(§ 2254 case); Clemmons v. Sowders, 34 F.3d 352, 354 (6th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Cappas, 29 F.3d 1187, 1193 (7th Cir. 1994)(applying Brecht to a § 2255 motion). If the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, then the conviction is void and must be set aside. Williams v. United States, 582 F.2d 1039, 1041 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 988 (1978). Relief for a non-constitutional error requires a showing of a fundamental defect in the proceeding that resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or an egregious error inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure. Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 354 (1994); Grant v. United States, 72 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1200 (1996).
Further, a § 2255 motion is not a substitute for a direct appeal and it cannot do service for an appeal. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998); United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979); Grant v. United States, 72 F.3d at 506; United States v. Walsh, 733 F.2d 31, 35 (6th Cir. 1984). Thurman cannot use a § 2255 motion to litigate the issues that should have been presented and decided on direct appeal unless cause is shown for the tardy challenge and "actual prejudice" resulting from the error is demonstrated, United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. at 167-68; or the movant is actually innocent of the crime. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. at 622. Issues that are presented and considered on direct appeal cannot be litigated again in a § 2255 proceeding absent exceptional circumstances or an intervening change in the law. Wright v. United States, 182 F.3d 458, 467 (6th Cir. 1999); Jones v. United States, 178 F.3d 790, 796 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 933 (1999); Oliver v. United States, 90 F.3d 177, 180 (6th Cir. 1996); DuPont v. United States, 76 F.3d 108, 110-11 (6th Cir. 1996).
10. On December 7, 2001, the defendant was the subject of a traffic stop by Deputy Matt Rose with the Rhea County Sheriff's Department in Rhea County, Tennessee. Prior to Mr. Thurman being pulled over by Deputy Rose, Rose noticed Thurman swerving across the center line. Rose activated his blue lights and Thurman pulled his vehicle over to the side of the road. Subsequent to a consent given by Mr. Thurman, Rose searched the vehicle and found a quart milk container containing six plastic baggies of suspected methamphetamine. However, due to the condition and nature of the milk container and the remaining milk in the container, the methamphetamine was unable to be tested. Therefore, there are no specific quantities of methamphetamine ...