Lesane v. United States of America
- Kimba Wood
- 1:24-cv-06989
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Steven Lesane v. United States, Judge Wood denied Lesane’s motion to vacate his sentence, finding his lawyers were not constitutionally ineffective.
Steven Lesane’s federal post-conviction challenge to his 256-month sentence was denied; the ruling also affected his ability to pursue an appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Steven Lesane v. United States, Steven Lesane asked the court to vacate or correct his 256-month sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge unconstitutional sentences. He argued that his lawyers failed to challenge his guilty plea, delays before the indictment, and sentencing facts and enhancements.
The court rejected each argument. It found that some issues had already been rejected by the Court of Appeals or by the district court, that Lesane’s plea was knowing and voluntary, that he had not shown actual prejudice from the pre-indictment delay, and that his sentencing objections had already been rejected.
Judge Wood denied the motion without holding a hearing because the written record showed Lesane was not entitled to relief. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Lesane could not proceed without paying the required filing fees for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Lesane v. United States of America · No. 1:24-cv-06989
- Kimba Wood
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Steven Lesane moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a law that allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. Lesane claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, meaning that his lawyers performed below constitutional standards and that their errors harmed him.
Lesane had pleaded guilty to one count of sex trafficking two minors from the summer of 2009 through 2012, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). The court later sentenced him to 256 months’ imprisonment. Lesane previously moved to withdraw his guilty plea and sought reconsideration, and the district court denied those requests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reconsideration and dismissed the appeal of his sentence. The Supreme Court denied review.
No Hearing
The court concluded that no evidentiary hearing was required. The record—including the plea agreement, plea and sentencing transcripts, presentence report, sentencing submissions, former lawyers’ affidavits, and the Court of Appeals’ mandate—conclusively showed that Lesane was not entitled to relief. The court found that additional testimony would not clarify the issues.
Ineffective-Assistance Claims
The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: Lesane had to show both that his lawyers’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different without the alleged errors.
The court rejected Lesane’s arguments concerning his guilty plea. It held that the Court of Appeals had already rejected arguments involving the statutory language cited in the charging document and the voluntariness of the plea. The court also noted that Lesane’s lawyer had raised the interstate-commerce argument in earlier proceedings, where it was rejected. Because these issues had already been resolved, the mandate rule—the rule requiring a lower court to follow issues decided by an appellate court—barred relitigation. The court also found that the arguments lacked merit and therefore could not establish ineffective assistance.
The court rejected Lesane’s claim concerning pre-indictment delay. To prevail on that claim, he had to show actual prejudice from the delay and that the Government intentionally delayed charges to gain a tactical advantage. The court found that Lesane identified no specific disadvantage caused by the delay and therefore had not shown the required prejudice.
The court also rejected Lesane’s sentencing-related claims. Lesane argued that his lawyer should have objected to an undue-influence enhancement and a computer enhancement. The court stated that Lesane had already raised those objections in his motion for reconsideration and that the court had rejected them. The arguments therefore did not support his ineffective-assistance claim.
Disposition
The court denied Lesane’s motion. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Lesane had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, which meant Lesane could not proceed without paying the required filing fees for such an appeal. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Lesane a copy of the opinion and order.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.