Russell v. USA

Filing 3

ORDER directing government to respond to the 2255 petition. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 9/28/12. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNEDY M. RUSSELL, SR.,
Defendant.

No. 12-1016-DRH
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is defendant’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to
vacate, set aside or correct sentence (Doc. 1). On April 27, 2011, a jury found
defendant guilty of willful failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7203.

On September 16, 2011, the Court sentenced him to 27 months

imprisonment (Doc. 58) and judgment reflecting the same was entered on September
19, 2011 (Doc. 61). On March 15, 2012, the Seventh Circuit affirmed defendant’s
sentence and conviction (Doc. 76).
In his § 2255 petition, defendant raises a slew of arguments for relief, all which
center around claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Although defendant did not
raise these grounds during his appeal, defendant may proceed on his § 2255 petition
if he can show either “cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the
alleged violation of federal law,” or “that failure to consider the claims will result in
a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750
Page 1 of 3

(1991)(emphasis added); see also Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 455 (2000).
In Murray v. Carrier, the Supreme Court held that ineffective assistance of
counsel may constitute cause. However, “[s]o long as a defendant is represented by
counsel whose performance is not constitutionally ineffective under the standard
established in Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 668 (1984),] [there is] no inequity
in requiring him to bear the risk of attorney error that results in a procedural
default.” Murray, 477 U.S. at 488 (emphasis added).
In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, a
petitioner must satisfy yet another two pronged test by showing: (1) “counsel’s
representations fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” (the performance
prong); and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (the
prejudice prong). Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694. In Castellanos v. United States,
26 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1994), the Seventh Circuit held that a § 2255 movant need not
demonstrate prejudice when raising an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel
where petitioner’s lawyer failed to file a requested direct appeal. Id. at 719.
In his motion, defendant seems to contend that his counsel’s performance was
below a reasonable standard, and that this caused him to found guilty. In essence,
defendant is arguing that but for the grounds raised in his motion, he would have
had sufficient counsel, and would likely have been found not guilty.
The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to petitioner’s motion
within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. The Government shall, as part
Page 2 of 3

of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 28th day of September, 2012.
Digitally signed by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2012.09.28 11:23:42
-05'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3