Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Timothy Eugene Suckow
Citations: 106 F.3d 414; 1997 WL 31558; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25932Docket: 96-2108
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; January 27, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Timothy Suckow requested a certificate of appealability to challenge the district court's dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which sought to vacate his sentence. Suckow raised three issues: ineffective assistance of counsel, his competency to stand trial, and improper sentencing. He claimed due process violations due to the district court's dismissal without an evidentiary hearing. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's denial under an abuse of discretion standard. The court found no abuse of discretion, concluding that Suckow's claims were legally insufficient regardless of their truth. Specifically, for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Suckow did not demonstrate the necessary prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, as overwhelming evidence indicated his guilt and he received the minimum statutory sentence. Regarding his claim of incompetency, the court noted that a competency hearing had been conducted during the criminal proceedings, and Suckow had not appealed that finding. Thus, this claim also failed. Lastly, his assertion of improper sentencing was undermined by the lack of demonstrated prejudice, as he had received the minimum statutory sentence. The court determined there was no substantial showing of deprivation of a constitutional right and subsequently denied Suckow's application and dismissed the appeal. The decision was made without oral argument, and the order is not binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines.