Brown v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-09149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Brown v. United States, Judge Cote denied Brown’s post-conviction petition, finding his challenges procedurally barred or meritless.
Corey Brown’s federal convictions and sentence were left in place; the United States prevailed on the petition.
What happened
In Brown v. United States, Corey Brown asked the court to vacate his convictions and sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge unlawful convictions. Brown argued that the jury was improperly instructed about racketeering and that the evidence did not support his convictions.
The court ruled that Brown had not raised the jury-instruction argument on direct appeal and therefore had not shown the required reason for raising it later, resulting harm, or actual innocence. The court also found that the instruction correctly stated the law and rejected Brown’s related claim that his lawyers were ineffective. His challenges to the evidence had already been raised and rejected on appeal, so he could not relitigate them in this petition.
Judge Denise Cote denied Brown’s petition. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brown v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-09149
- Denise Cote
- June 17, 2024
Background
Corey Brown, appearing without a lawyer in this proceeding, asked the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction. A § 2255 petition is a post-conviction motion asking the sentencing court to set aside a conviction or sentence that violated federal law or the Constitution.
Brown and two co-defendants were charged in connection with the gang known as Sex Money Murder. Brown was charged with racketeering conspiracy; murder and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering activity; causing a murder through use of a firearm; and being a felon in possession of a firearm. A jury found him guilty on all five counts, and he was sentenced principally to life imprisonment plus 60 months.
The evidence at trial included testimony that Brown authorized Christopher Lopez to kill Vincent Davis after Davis had previously slashed Brown’s face. The Court of Appeals affirmed Brown’s conviction, and Brown did not seek review by the Supreme Court.
Claims and analysis
Brown raised two principal challenges. First, he argued that the jury was improperly instructed on the meaning of “racketeering.” He also argued that his lawyers were ineffective for failing to object to the instruction at trial and for failing to raise the issue on appeal.
The court held that Brown’s direct challenge to the instruction was procedurally defaulted because he had not raised it on direct appeal. To overcome that bar, he needed to show a legally sufficient reason for the omission and actual harm, or show that he was actually innocent. The court found that he had shown none of those circumstances. It further stated that the instruction correctly explained the legal standards and elements of the racketeering-related charges. The court also rejected the ineffective-assistance claims because Brown had not shown deficient performance or resulting prejudice.
Second, Brown argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was responsible for Davis’s murder or participated in the drug dealing alleged as racketeering activity. The court held that these arguments had already been raised and rejected on direct appeal and therefore could not be relitigated through a § 2255 petition.
Disposition
The court denied Brown’s October 24, 2022 petition to vacate his conviction. It did not grant a certificate of appealability because Brown had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The court also determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.