Alonzo Suggs v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1081
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Suggs was convicted in 2001 of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and received a 300-month sentence.
- He challenged his conviction and sentence under §2255 and succeeded on one ground, obtaining a new 240-month sentence after resentencing in 2009.
- After resentencing, Suggs learned new Brady/Giglio-related information that could merit an evidentiary hearing if raised in a first §2255 motion.
- Suggs filed a second §2255 motion challenging only the underlying conviction, arguing it was not “second or successive” because of the new resentencing judgment.
- The district court dismissed the second motion as second or successive under Dahler, and Suggs appealed.
- The legal question is whether a second §2255 motion challenging the original conviction post-resentencing is barred as second or successive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suggs’ post-resentencing motion is second or successive | Suggs views it as not second or successive since it attacks pre-resentencing issues. | District court and Dahler treat it as second or successive because it attacks the original conviction. | Second or successive; district court affirmed dismissal. |
| Magwood’s applicability to §2255s challenging the underlying conviction | Magwood would allow such a motion not to be second or successive if a new judgment followed the first petition. | Magwood does not apply to the Suggs scenario because it concerns challenges to the underlying conviction, not the resentence, and our precedent stands. | Magwood does not disturb Dahler; petition remains second or successive under §2244(b). |
| Impact of Dahler and Walker on post-resentencing challenges | Walker suggests post-resentencing challenging aspects of resentencing are not second or successive; Dahler clarifies pre-resentencing errors are treated as on original conviction. | Dahler remains controlling for whether the claim challenges the pre-resentencing conviction or the resentencing. | Suggs’ motion challenges the underlying conviction, thus barred as second or successive under Dahler. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dahler v. United States, 259 F.3d 763 (7th Cir.2001) (distinguishes novel resentencing errors from pre-resentencing errors for §2255)
- Walker v. Roth, 133 F.3d 454 (7th Cir.1997) (post-resentencing petitions challenging resentencing not second or successive)
- Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010) (new judgment after initial §2254 petition; not second or successive under §2244(b))
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (exhaustion and timing considerations in successive petitions)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (timing/ripe claims doctrine in habeas petitions)
- Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (inability to raise certain claims when not ripe treated as single application)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993) (definition of judgment includes guilt adjudication and sentence)
- Johnson v. United States, 623 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.2010) (magazine extension of Magwood in parallel circuits)
- Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.2012) (Magwood interpreted across circuits)