Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Carl Green v. United States
Citations: 23 F.3d 406; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 17552; 1994 WL 144435Docket: 93-4108
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; April 21, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Carl Green's appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 is addressed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Green was convicted in 1990 on multiple drug-related charges and sentenced to 420 months, a decision affirmed on direct appeal. He subsequently filed a motion to vacate, raising various challenges, which a magistrate judge recommended denying; the district court adopted this recommendation despite Green's objections. Green, representing himself, presented five assignments of error on appeal. The court found that some of Green's claims were not valid under Sec. 2255, while others did not demonstrate a fundamental flaw that would indicate a miscarriage of justice or due process violation. Key issues included Green's claim of prosecutorial misconduct regarding the prosecutor's characterization of a witness as a liar, which he did not raise during his direct appeal. The court noted that such claims are typically not considered in Sec. 2255 motions unless the petitioner can show cause for the omission and resulting prejudice. Green's vague assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel was insufficient to establish this, and the absence of a contemporaneous objection to the prosecutor’s comments further weakened his position. Ultimately, the court determined that the claim of misconduct lacked merit and did not warrant relief. Green argued that the district court erred by dismissing his Sixth Amendment claim without an evidentiary hearing, contending that testimony from his former cellmate, Ripley, was improperly obtained in violation of his right to counsel. However, this issue had previously been addressed and rejected during Green's direct appeal, where it was determined that there was no unconstitutional acquisition of the information and that it did not harm Green's case. Consequently, issues resolved on direct appeal cannot be re-litigated in a Sec. 2255 motion to vacate, affirming the district court's decision not to hold a hearing on this matter. Additionally, Green claimed his sentence was improperly calculated under the career offender guideline, a point he did not raise on direct appeal. Due to the lack of explanation for this oversight and absence of apparent prejudice, this claim cannot be revisited in a collateral attack. Green further asserted that the dismissal of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing was improper. However, the record indicated that he was not entitled to relief, as he failed to demonstrate that his attorney's performance was deficient or that he suffered prejudice affecting his right to a fair trial. Many of the allegations against his counsel were considered frivolous or speculative, and the court maintained a strong presumption in favor of reasonable professional assistance by counsel. Ultimately, the district court's judgment was affirmed, indicating that Green's claims lacked merit.