Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing

By Brandon Sample | February 12, 2017 | Comments Off on Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing
Mark Christeson filed a motion to re-open his habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b) arguing that his attorney’s failure to timely submit his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (used by state prisoners but similar to a 2255) constituted attorney abandonment. The abandonment issue was key to resolving whether “extraordinary circumstances” existed to warrant granting Rule 60 relief and for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Eighth Circuit remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing to determine the abandonment issue. The lower court had previously relied on prior counsel’s conduct AFTER the deadline to show there was no abandonment. This was in contrast to evidence in the record that suggested the lawyers had abandoned Christeson because, for example, they did not meet with Christeson until “six weeks after the petition due date.” Christeson v. Griffith, No. 16-2730 (8th Cir. 2017).
Posted in Habeas Corpus

About Brandon Sample

Brandon Sample is an attorney, author, and criminal justice reform activist. Brandon’s law practice is focused on federal criminal defense, federal appeals, federal post-conviction relief, federal civil rights litigation, federal administrative law, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Recommended for you

Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions

At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…

Read More about Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions

Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends

Anthony Holman’s supervised release was revoked for failing to pay restitution and picking up a new charge. However, the violation petition was not submitted until after Holman’s term of supervision had already expired. No summons was pending at the time either. Generally, whenever a U.S. Probation Officer believes that a defendant has violated his or…

Read More about Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends

Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review

In Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), the Supreme Court held that “at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)…

Read More about Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review
Load More loader