United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
April 18, 2002
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHARLES MACK, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marvin Katz, Senior United States District Judge.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant seeks post conviction relief from a sentence of 262 months'
imprisonment following his jury conviction under the Armed Career
Criminal Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. United
States v. Mack, 229 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court denied
certiorari. Mack v. United States, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001).
At the trial, a witness admitted he had identified defendant as the
person who shot him right after the shooting. At trial, the witness
testified he never actually saw the person who shot him. Admission of the
prior identification at the scene was not error. United States v. Lopez,
271 F.3d 472, 484-85 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Brink, 39 F.3d 419,
425-26 (3d Cir. 1994).
The admission into evidence of a rifle was, on balance, necessary to
explain why police were on the scene. A dozen spent shell casings from
the rifle were discovered close to where defendant was crouched behind a
car with a hand gun in his possession.
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his attorney had any conflict
of interest that affected the trial or its outcome.
The sentencing issues raised by defendant were litigated and rejected
on direct appeal.
Defendant has not demonstrated the ineffectiveness of his trial
counsel. There were no viable Fourth Amendment issues with respect
to the recovery of the rifle.
Nor has defendant demonstrated that his experienced Federal Defender
failed to advise him of his right to testify or prevented him from taking
the stand. It would plainly have been high risk for a defendant with his
record to do so.*fn1 Defendant's affidavit attached to his Motion makes
no such claim. One need only read the Court of Appeals decision in this
case to understand that defense counsel was effective in handling the
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2002, upon consideration of Motion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a
Person in Federal Custody, it is ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.