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

jurisdictionappealmotionhabeas corpus
jurisdictionappealmotionlease

Related Cases

Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S105, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S413
View Case »
Aikman v. Kanda, 975 A.2d 152
View Case »
United States v. Polishan, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2007 WL 9747647
View Case »
State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 578 S.E.2d 32
View Case »
Espino-Rangel v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1844150
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Potwin v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1477475

Facts

The petitioner was charged with multiple counts of robbery and firearm offenses, pled guilty to some counts, and was sentenced to 300 months in prison. After filing a previous petition for habeas corpus that was denied, the petitioner filed a new petition arguing jurisdictional issues and improper sentencing. The court noted that the current petition was subject to screening under AEDPA due to the prior petition.

Petitioner was charged in a superseding indictment with five counts of robbery and five counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. He pled guilty to two robbery counts and two firearm counts. At sentencing, the government dismissed the two robbery counts. Petitioner was sentenced to 300 months in prison followed by three years supervised release. Petitioner did not appeal.

Issue

Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Unless the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals first grants Petitioner leave to filed the present § 2255 petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a second or successive motion must be certified by a court of appeals before it can be heard in the district court.

Those sections provide that a second or successive motion filed by a person attacking a sentence under § 2255 must be certified by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals before it can be heard in the district court.

Analysis

The court determined that the claims raised in the petition were available to the petitioner at the time of his initial § 2255 filing, thus categorizing them as second or successive under AEDPA. Since the Fifth Circuit had not granted the petitioner leave to file this current petition, the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

The claims that Petitioner seeks to raise in this § 2255 petition were available to him when he filed his initial § 2255 and thus are second or successive under the AEDPA.

Conclusion

The court recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice, allowing the petitioner the right to seek leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in the Fifth Circuit.

Therefore, the petition should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Such dismissal, however, is without prejudice to Petitioner's right to file a motion for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 petition in the Fifth Circuit pursuant to § 2244(b)(3)(A).

Who won?

The United States of America prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's claims.

You must be