Barrett v. United States
961 F. Supp. 2d 403
D. Conn.2013Background
- Barrett pled guilty on Sept. 25, 2007 to Counts 9–10 in 3:07-cr-10 (SRU) under a plea agreement; waiver limits appeal/collateral attack if sentence ≤387 months.
- Barrett was sentenced Sept. 30, 2008 to 150 months total and did not appeal.
- Barrett timely filed a coram nobis petition on Jan. 21, 2011; the court converted it to a 2255 habeas petition and opened a civil file on July 5, 2011.
- Barrett’s 2255 grounds rely on United States v. Savage to challenge the career-offender classification under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and on ineffective assistance for not objecting.
- The petition was initially deemed untimely; the court granted reconsideration but ultimately denied the petition as time-barred after-equitable tolling analysis.
- The court noted Barrett’s sentence consisted of 90 months on Count 9 and 60 months on Count 10, consecutive; he did not challenge the validity of his guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under AEDPA § 2255(f). | Barrett argues untimeliness should be tolled. | Barrett did not timely file; no sufficient tolling. | No; petition time-barred absent equitable tolling. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies given extraordinary circumstances. | Barrett suffered education limits, possible mental health issues, and counsel’s failure to inform rights. | These factors do not establish extraordinary circumstances with reasonable diligence. | Equitable tolling not warranted. |
| Whether Barrett’s delay after notice from counsel bars tolling. | Delay caused by counsel’s later notice. | Delay after notice indicates lack of reasonable diligence. | Delay not excused; tolling denied. |
| Whether waiver in plea agreement forecloses 2255 grounds or merits review. | Waiver should bar 2255 grounds raised. | Waiver applies if sentence not exceeding 387 months. | Waiver not necessary to decide; petition anyway time-barred on merits. |
| Whether the actual-innocence exception preserves relief. | Petitioner claims actual innocence of the career-offender enhancement. | Argument fails; no actual-innocence basis. | Actual-innocence exception inapplicable; not a basis to grant relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2001) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and diligence)
- Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir.2000) (extraordinary circumstances; need causation with filing delay)
- Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.2008) (denotes diligence standards for tolling after notice)
- Belot v. Burge, 490 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.2007) (timeliness and diligence considerations in tolling analysis)
- Rivera v. United States, 448 Fed.Appx. 145 (2d Cir.2011) (evidentiary hearing not required where tolling ineligible)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (actual-innocence inquiry is narrow; not applicable here)
- Poindexter v. Nash, 333 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.2003) (actual innocence exception does not apply to purely legal arguments)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are liberally construed)