Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. MACK

United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania


April 18, 2002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
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 direct appeal.

ORDER

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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.