Robinson v. United States
4:22-cv-00558
E.D. Mo.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Jilvis L. Robinson was convicted after pleading guilty to carjacking and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a carjacking, receiving a sentence of 120 months' imprisonment.
- The conviction became final on June 18, 2020; Robinson did not file a direct appeal.
- Robinson later sought a 90-day extension to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, citing limited access to legal research due to prison COVID-19 restrictions; the deadline was extended to October 26, 2021.
- Robinson filed his § 2255 motion on May 17, 2022, raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on an alleged discrepancy between his plea agreement and the indictment.
- The government moved to dismiss the § 2255 motion as untimely, arguing it was filed well after the statutory deadline and Robinson failed to show grounds for equitable tolling.
- Robinson did not file a response to the government’s motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 2255 Motion | COVID-19 impeded timely filing; law library access restricted | Motion filed beyond one-year deadline; no extraordinary circumstances justifying delay | Motion is untimely; no equitable tolling applies |
| Ineffective Assistance of Counsel | Plea agreement did not match the indictment; erroneous elements cited | Any error was a harmless typographical mistake; not relevant due to untimeliness | Did not address on merits due to untimeliness |
| Need for Evidentiary Hearing | Implicit claim—motion might warrant hearing | Records conclusively show no relief is due | No hearing required |
| Certificate of Appealability | Seeks relief/appeal | No substantial showing of constitutional right denial | Certificate denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. United States, 24 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 1994) (court may dismiss a § 2255 claim without an evidentiary hearing if the claim is inadequate or refuted by the record)
- Peden v. United States, 914 F.3d 1151 (8th Cir. 2019) (one-year statute of limitations for § 2255 motions)
- English v. United States, 840 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2016) (equitable tolling applies only in extraordinary circumstances)
- Kreutzer v. Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2000) (lack of legal resources does not warrant equitable tolling)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (certificate of appealability requires a substantial showing of constitutional right denial)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability on procedural dismissals)