United States v. Turner
818 F. Supp. 2d 207
D.D.C.2011Background
- Turner was convicted by a jury in 2006 of conspiracy to defraud the United States and bribery.
- Mayo’s life insurance beneficiary designation listed Turner; Turner received $20,562.90 from a claim.
- Turner allegedly forged Mayo’s signature; Andrews had access to Mayo’s file and Turner gave her $1,000.
- Turner was sentenced in 2007 to two concurrent 33-month terms, with supervised release, after denying a downward departure for extraordinary physical impairment.
- The DC Circuit remanded for resentencing after determining the guidelines version at sentencing was incorrect, leading to resentencing in 2009.
- Turner later sought 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief; the district court denied the motion, and Turner timely moved for relief.
- By 2011 Turner completed incarceration and sought early termination of supervised release, which remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Turner argues counsels’ performance was deficient and prejudiced his defense | Government contends allegations are vague and lack evidentiary support | Denied; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice |
| Competency to stand trial | Turner was impaired by illnesses affecting understanding and communication | Claim procedurally defaulted and unsupported by record | Procedurally barred; alternative merit denied based on observed competency |
| Use of correct version of Guidelines for original sentence | Court used the wrong Guidelines version at original sentencing | Issue resolved by DC Circuit remand for resentencing; moot post-resentencing | Moot; denied on this basis |
| Certificate of Appealability | Appeal-worthy issues exist | No substantial showing of a constitutional violation | No COA issued; appeal must proceed via COA from the D.C. Circuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (high bar for Strickland prejudice assessment; strong deference to counsel)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (competency to stand trial requires rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (establishes standard for defendant’s competency)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims can be raised on collateral review)
- Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1994) (writ of habeas corpus not an appeal; default rules apply)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (procedural default and actual innocence considerations)
- United States v. Morrison, 98 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (discretion in ruling on motions and hearing rights)