Hogge v. USA
OPINION AND ORDER: Federal Public Defender is ORDERED to appoint counsel to represent Hogge at a new evidentiary hearing. Appointed counsel for Hogge and counsel for the government are ORDERED to appear for an evidentiary hearing on the Section 2 255 motion on May 19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before Chief Judge Philip P Simon. Following motions are denied: 28 Motion for Bond, 19 Motion to Vacate Lien/Levy and 20 Motion to Vacate the restitution order as to Jonathan Hogge. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 1/5/15. cc: Hogge, FPD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OPINION AND ORDER
Jonathan Hogge filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to overturn his
criminal conviction. (Docket Entry 255.) An evidentiary hearing was held at which Hogge
represented himself. This was in error, as Hogge should have had appointed counsel
pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, so the Seventh
Circuit has remanded the case to this Court to hold a new evidentiary hearing.
THEREFORE the Federal Public Defender is ORDERED to appoint counsel to
represent Hogge at a new evidentiary hearing.
Appointed counsel for Hogge and counsel for the government are ORDERED to
appear for an evidentiary hearing on the Section 2255 motion on May 19, 2015 at 10:00
Additionally, Hogge has filed two motions seeking (1) to vacate the restitution order
imposed in connection with his criminal conviction (DE 294), and (2) to Vacate Lien/Levy
in connection with the restitution order (DE 293). These motions are both DENIED because
any decision on them would be pointless at this stage given the upcoming evidentiary
hearing on the 2255 motion, which may bear on the restitution order underlying these
Finally, Hogge has moved for bond pending the outcome of the new evidentiary
hearing. (DE 314.) He bases the request on 18 U.S.C. § 3143, which provides guidelines for
release or detention pending sentence or appeal. To begin with, Hogge has a 2255 motion
pending in his original criminal case; he is neither awaiting sentencing, nor does he have
a pending appeal. Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit’s Order requiring a new evidentiary
hearing on Hogge’s 2255 petition due to the procedural error of failing to appoint counsel
for the hearing is not a statement of Hogge’s innocence in the underlying criminal case.
Even if Hogge were to prevail on his 2255 motion, his relief could then be resentencing or
a new trial, depending on the circumstances; a 2255 motion is not by any means likely to
exonerate him. Hogge provides no basis or precedent for his request of release on bond
while his 2255 motion is pending. Unless and until he prevails on the 2255 motion, Hogge
remains a convicted, sentenced defendant without a pending appeal, and there is no basis
upon which to release him on bond as he requests. Hogge’s motion for bond is therefore
DENIED. (DE 314.)
Entered: January 5 , 2015
/s/ Philip P. Simon
Philip P. Simon, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?