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.
Melvin Turner v. United States
Citations: 183 F.3d 474; 1999 WL 446554Docket: 96-5742
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; August 19, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Melvin Turner appealed a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising three main issues: the retroactive applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in *Old Chief v. United States*, the denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing, and the refusal to hold a hearing on the constitutionality of his prior convictions that enhanced his sentence. Turner had been convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He argued that the district court erred by allowing the prosecution to present details of his prior convictions instead of accepting his stipulation as a convicted felon. Citing *Old Chief*, which holds that introducing the name and nature of prior offenses can unfairly influence a jury, Turner contended this constituted an abuse of discretion. However, the court concluded that *Old Chief* announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively on collateral review, as established in prior circuit decisions. Consequently, Turner's challenges regarding the introduction of prior convictions were rejected, along with the claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and the constitutionality of his prior convictions, leading to the affirmation of the district court's denial of his petition. Turner alleges a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, claiming his attorney did not present adequate exculpatory evidence at trial. However, his affidavit in support of the habeas corpus petition lacks any factual assertions regarding his counsel's effectiveness. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a court must serve notice to the U.S. attorney and hold a hearing only if the case records do not conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief. Despite the low burden for obtaining an evidentiary hearing, merely asserting innocence is insufficient. Turner's affidavit fails to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient, justifying the district court's decision not to conduct a hearing. Additionally, Turner claims entitlement to a hearing regarding the constitutionality of prior convictions that enhanced his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. However, as established in Custis v. United States, challenges to prior state convictions must be made in state court or through a separate federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not within a federal sentencing context. Turner’s attempt to use his federal habeas petition to contest state convictions does not align with Custis. Consequently, the court affirms the district court's judgment denying relief to Turner.