Martin v. USA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Martins petition (Doc. 1) by April 27, 2015. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/25/2015. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RAYMOND M. MARTIN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-00311-JPG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Raymond M. Martin’s Motion (Doc. 1) to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the following
reasons, Petitioner’s motion survives this threshold review and the Court orders the government to
file its response.
On September 23, 2010, Raymond M. Martin was found guilty by jury trial of fifteen
offenses including distribution of marijuana, carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime,
and witness tampering. He was sentenced on January 19, 2011, to custody of the Bureau of
Prisons for 60 months as to Counts 1,2,3,6, and 15; 120 months as to Counts 7 through 14; and life
with regard to Counts 4 and 5; to run concurrent.
Petitioner appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated the
sentence. As such, the case was remanded for resentencing and the Court resentenced the
Petitioner to the same sentence on December 7, 2012. The Petitioner again appealed and that
appeal was dismissed on February 6, 2014.

Petitioner filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition on March 20, 2015, alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel at his trial. A judgment of conviction becomes final for ' 2255 purposes
when the time expires for filing a petition for certiorari contesting the appellate court’s decision
affirming of the conviction. Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 524-25 (2003). The period for
filing such a petition expires 90 days after the court of appeals enters judgment or denies a petition
for rehearing. S. Ct. R. 13. As such, Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition is timely filed.
The Court has reviewed the petition and has identified the following claim:
1.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to object to the lack of a federal nexus;
2.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to request a Franks hearing challenging the accuracy of the statements of Jeremy
Potts;
3.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to present an alibi defense;
4.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to investigate Petitioner’s alibi defense including interviewing witnesses with
regard to Petitioner’s alibi defense;
5.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to object to the weapon related charges;
6.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to contact and call as witness relevant witnesses;
7.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to argue an entrapment defense; and
8.

Whether Petitioner was denied due process by ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to object to the seizure of Petitioner’s assets without due process that in effect
prohibited Petitioner from retaining counsel of his choosing.

The Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Martin’s petition (Doc. 1) by
April 27, 2015. The Government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the

record. Petitioner may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) by May 11th, 2015.

If review

of the briefs indicates that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the court will set the hearing by
separate notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

3/25/2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE