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

MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds

United States v. Mitchell J. Stein : Mitchell Stein, a former attorney, challenged the district court’s loss and MVRA restitution determination in a mail, wire, and securities fraud prosecution arguing that the Government had failed to demonstrate both factual and legal causation for the loss amount.Using the same standard for Stein’s loss and restitution challenge,…

Read More about MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds

Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction

United States v. Tanksley – Career Offender Enhancement  : Dantana Tanksley was previously convicted in Texas under Section 481.112(a) of the Texas controlled substances act of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was later enhanced as a career offender under federal sentencing guidelines. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, an individual can be…

Read More about Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction

Oregon Drug Delivery Conviction Not A Federal “Controlled Substance Offense” For Career Offender Purposes

Oregon drug delivery conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes 475.992(1)(a) is not a “controlled substance offense” under federal law, according to the Ninth Circuit. Sandoval v. Yates, No. 13-71784 (9th Cir. 2017). This is an important case for criminal defendants because of its impact on individuals with career offender enhancements. The court held that Oregon drug delivery…

Read More about Oregon Drug Delivery Conviction Not A Federal “Controlled Substance Offense” For Career Offender Purposes
Load More loader