Source: http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110914_0002025.DNJ.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-26 03:29:15
Document Index: 209221247

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

| Steven Jackson v. United States of America
Steven Jackson v. United States of America
STEVEN JACKSON, PETITIONER,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
Pro se Petitioner Steven Jackson (hereinafter "Jackson" or "Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at the United States Penitentiary Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky, has filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on the alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Jackson maintains that the failure of his counsel, Larraine Gauli-Rufo and Patrick McMahon (hereinafter "Counsel"), to perform a thorough investigation of the crime scene and present a defense of officer misconduct on his behalf, gave rise to a Sixth Amendment violation. Petitioner additionally asserts a Fourth Amendment violation, arising out of this Court's refusal to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his suppression motion. The Respondent, the United States of America (hereinafter "the Government"), filed its Answer, as ordered by the Court. The Government opposes the petition on grounds that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not legally cognizable since his Counsel acted effectively and since Petitioner was not prejudiced by any of their actions or inactions. The Court has considered the papers filed and for reasons discussed below, denies Petitioner's section 2255 motion.
According to the Government, on December 31, 2006, two Newark police officers, Michael Giordano and Louis Weber, were parked in an unmarked police car when they witnessed Petitioner sell drugs to three customers outside of 7 Riverview Court in Newark, New Jersey. The Government contends that the officers approached Petitioner, identified themselves as police officers, and attempted to arrest him. Subsequently, the Government avers that Petitioner dropped one bag containing heroin and fled into 7 Riverview Court, where the police were able to apprehend him. Upon searching Petitioner, police recovered an additional bag containing cocaine, as well as a loaded gun.
Petitioner was subsequently charged with, and pled not guilty to, the following three counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) & (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and (3) possession of a weapon by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)(A). On February 29, 2008 Petitioner was found guilty by a jury verdict on all three counts.
Jackson appealed the verdict of the trial court, and on January 29, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction. Petitioner also filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on June 14, 2010. Jackson has now moved to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Jackson is a pro se petitioner. A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings filed by lawyers. Haines v. Lerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Our jurisprudence directs that a pro se habeas petition, such as the one at bar, should be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998). However, even applying this generous standard, the Court finds that Petitioner's § 2255 petition must be denied.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 permits a prisoner in federal custody to attack the validity of his sentence as having been imposed in violation of the Constitution. United States v. Nino, 878 F.2d 101, 103 (3d Cir. 1989). In considering a motion brought pursuant to section 2255, the Court "must accept the truth of the movant's factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record." United States v. Garvin, 270 F. App'x 141, 143 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 545-46 (3d Cir. 2005)). Moreover, the Court "must order an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts unless the motion and files and records of the case show conclusively that the movant is not entitled to relief." Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59, 62 (3d Cir. 1989). As the discussion below will illustrate, the facts concerning Petitioner's habeas corpus claim are clear, and the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary.
In this section 2255 motion, Petitioner collaterally attacks his sentence based on the claim that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14 (1970) (holding that Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel to accused in criminal prosecution includes right to effective assistance of counsel). The Supreme Court decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) sets forth the standard for establishing a claim that a habeas petitioner's Sixth Amendment right of effective assistance of counsel has been violated. The Strickland Court held:
Id. at 687. The Third Circuit has stressed that relief under § 2255 based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires that the petitioner satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test: a breach of duty and prejudice as a result of that breach. Nino, 878 F.2d at 103-04. The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Baynes, 622 F.2d 66, 69 (3d Cir. 1980).
Petitioner has not met this burden. Petitioner argues that his Counsel's performance was deficient since they did not perform a thorough investigation of the crime scene, as evidenced by their failure to: (1) dispute the arresting officers' testimony concerning the distance of their observations, (2) introduce how the door the officers claimed to have chased Petitioner through was not accessible from the outside, and (3) call two witnesses who would have refuted the police officers' account of the events leading up to Petitioner's arrest. However, Counsel repeatedly addressed the validity of the officers' testimony concerning the distance from which they observed Petitioner selling drugs, both in the direct examination of the investigator for the Federal Public Defenders Office and in the cross-examinations of the arresting officers. The observation distance issue was also emphasized in Counsel's closing argument. The second example that Petitioner provides, Counsel's failure to address the credibility of the officers' testimony about the door to 7 Riverview Court, was also thoroughly investigated and presented to the jury. Counsel repeatedly questioned Officer Giordano on the subject and addressed the issue in their closing argument. Furthermore, while Counsel did not call the two witnesses that Petitioner specifically references, the record reflects that Counsel called numerous other witnesses in the course of the trial, including six police officers, a manager at the ...