Susinka v. United States
19 F. Supp. 3d 829
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Petitioner Stephen Susinka, pro se, moves to reconsider the court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate his sentence.
- Susinka was part of a 2006 indictment of sixteen individuals in the Aurora Deuces gang, charged with racketeering conspiracy (Count One) and narcotics conspiracy (Count Nine).
- The court severed the case into two trials; Susinka was convicted on Count One (racketeering conspiracy) after a two-month trial; Count Nine ended in a mistrial.
- On January 20, 2009, Susinka was sentenced to 20 years on Count One, to run concurrently with a state sentence, plus five years of supervised release and a $2,500 fine.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and modified the supervised-release term; Susinka sought Supreme Court review, which did not occur within the time limits.
- Susinka filed a § 2255 petition on March 5, 2013; the district court denied it as untimely and denied the merits; the court later denied reconsideration and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the § 2255 petition | Susinka argues extensions to certiorari toll the 2255 deadline. | Finality attaches when certiorari time expires; untimely certiorari petitions do not toll § 2255. | Petition untimely; extensions after finality do not toll § 2255. |
| Alleyne retroactivity and Teague | Alleyne invalidates the judgment as a new rule; should retroactively apply. | Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review; Teague bars retroactivity for final cases. | Alleyne does not apply retroactively to Susinka; no basis for reconsideration. |
| Prospective sentencing correction | Court’s sentencing language should have credited time retroactively with state sentence. | No express retroactive concurrency; credits and timing were properly analyzed; no error in decision. | No manifest error; sentence properly characterized as concurrent with undischarged state sentence; no correction warranted. |
| Ineffective assistance/other merits arguments | Claims of ineffective assistance and Sixth Amendment concerns were raised at sentencing. | Arguments previously rejected; Rule 59(e) does not permit rehashing previously rejected merits. | Reconsideration denied for defective Rule 59(e) basis; merits not revisited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (U.S. 2003) (finality on certiorari deadline governs § 2255 timetable)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (90-day deadlines may be nonjurisdictional and can be relaxed)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new constitutional rules generally not retroactive on collateral review)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (fact-increasing penalties beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (judicially-found facts may inform sentence within statutory maximum)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (Teague retroactivity framework; Alleyne not retroactive)