Appellate Law

CA1: Apprendi pipeline case sees briefly sees light in IAAC context

By S. COTUS

Martinez-Medina v. US, No. 06-1594 (unpublished).  This affirms a denial of a motion to vacate a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  The grounds asserted are whether, in an ?Apprendi Pipeline? case, the defendant was given ineffective assistance of counsel when she ?misconstrued? Apprendi and conceded (to the First Circuit) that he would be subject to a higher sentence.  But the First says that in the underlying case, the higher sentence would have been warranted because the indictment did state enough (i.e. that there were ?multi-kilograms? of cocaine in drug conpsiracy.)  Likewise, the First says that it had found in appeals of his codefendant?s cases that a failure of the jury to find drug quantity was harmless error.  Therefore, the statutory maximum was life, and there were no real Apprendi claims.  Therefore, appellate counsel?s concession didn?t make a difference.

The First ends by saying that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions can?t be used to make Booker retroactive.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on May 08, 2008 (boomark / email).