Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneytrialtestimonymotionjury trial
trialtestimonyaffidavitmotionjury trial

Related Cases

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055
View Case »
Pelagatti v. Cohen, 370 Pa.Super. 422, 536 A.2d 1337
View Case »
In re Pyle, 283 Kan. 807, 156 P.3d 1231
View Case »
Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025, 79 USLW 3002, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8482, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,093, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 719
View Case »
In re Marrone, 36 Misc.3d 225, 944 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 22115
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McKibbins v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 5550124

Facts

In 2008, Patrick McKibbins was arrested for traveling from Wisconsin to Illinois to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, leading to a three-count indictment. After a jury trial in January 2009, he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 140 months in prison. McKibbins later filed a § 2255 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his attorney failed to introduce a psychosexual evaluation, call character witnesses, and allow him to testify, among other issues.

In 2008, petitioner was arrested in the Northern District of Illinois for traveling in interstate commerce from Wisconsin to Illinois for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). Petitioner was charged in a three-count superseding indictment with using interstate wire communications to attempt to entice an individual whom the petitioner believed to be a female minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2442(b) (Count One); traveling in interstate commerce in order to engage in a sexual act with an individual whom the petitioner believed to be a female minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (Count Two); and attempted obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1) and (2) (Count Three). On January 16, 2009, following a four day jury trial, petitioner was found guilty on all three counts. Petitioner was subsequently sentenced to 140 months' imprisonment.

Issue

Did the petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel that warrants vacating his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?

Did the petitioner receive ineffective assistance of counsel that warrants vacating his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?

Rule

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense, affecting the outcome of the trial.

To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show that his counsel's conduct 'fell below an objective standard of reasonableness' and 'outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.'

Analysis

The court analyzed each of the petitioner's claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that the decisions made by counsel were strategic and within the range of acceptable professional assistance. The court found no evidence that the introduction of the psychosexual evaluation or the testimony of character witnesses would have changed the trial's outcome. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had initiated the online conversations leading to his charges, undermining his claims of entrapment.

The court analyzed each of the petitioner's claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that the decisions made by counsel were strategic and within the range of acceptable professional assistance. The court found no evidence that the introduction of the psychosexual evaluation or the testimony of character witnesses would have changed the trial's outcome. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had initiated the online conversations leading to his charges, undermining his claims of entrapment.

Conclusion

The court denied the petitioner's motion to vacate his sentence, concluding that he did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or any resulting prejudice.

The court therefore denies petitioner's Section 2255 motion to vacate his sentence.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel.

The government states that no such report has been tendered, and petitioner has not submitted an affidavit attesting to the facts allegedly contained in the report.

You must be