Hinton v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 15

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/29/2022. (bes, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
STANLEY JAWAN HINTON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:19cv286-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, petitioner, a federal
inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief.

This

lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge that the petition
be

denied.

Also

before

the

court

are

petitioner’s

objections to the recommendation.
After
record,

an

independent

the

objections

court

should

be

and

de

concludes
overruled

novo

review

that
and

of

the

petitioner’s
the

magistrate

judge’s recommendation adopted, with the exception of a
portion

of

misreading

the
of

recommendation
the

record.

that
That

is

based

part

of

on

a

the

recommendation addresses petitioner’s claim that trial

counsel

was

ineffective

for

failing

to

preserve

his

sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim for appeal, resulting
in

the

application

of

a

“plain

error”

standard

of

review on appeal rather than a more favorable de novo
review.

In addressing that claim,

the recommendation

concludes that “it was Hinton’s written brief on appeal
that

failed

to

preserve

the

issue, not trial counsel.”

sufficiency

of

evidence

Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 11) at 13 (citing United States v. Hinton, 730 F.
App'x 719, 721 (11th Cir. 2018)).
somewhat
court’s

confusing,
opinion

and

after
the

While the record is

review

of

petitioner’s

the

appellate

brief

in

the

appeal, it is clear that the reason for the appeals
court’s

application

of

plain-error

review

was

that

trial counsel failed to preserve the arguments raised
by appellate counsel, not that appellate counsel failed
to preserve trial counsel’s arguments.

Nevertheless,

as petitioner has not established that the outcome of
his

appeal

would

have

been
2

any

different

had

trial

counsel preserved all issues raised in the appeal, his
claim will still be denied.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 29th day of July, 2022.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3