Starkes v. United States

Background

Quentin Starkes pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 and one count of narcotics conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 846. The court sentenced him to 100 months in prison followed by three years of post-release supervision on the racketeering-conspiracy count, and to 60 months of imprisonment followed by five years of post-release supervision on the narcotics-conspiracy count. The sentences were concurrent. Starkes did not appeal.

On January 9, 2020, Starkes filed a letter stating that his counsel had been ineffective by failing to request a competency evaluation and by failing to file an appeal. He asked for a hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal procedure generally used by a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of a conviction or sentence. He did not file a formal § 2255 motion.

Treatment of the Letter

The court held that Starkes’s letter could be treated as a § 2255 motion because it challenged his conviction and sentence and briefly identified possible grounds for relief. The court stated that Starkes could notify the court in writing if he did not want to pursue relief under § 2255. It also granted leave to file an amended § 2255 motion stating every ground for relief and the facts supporting each ground.

The order explained that a federal prisoner generally must file a § 2255 motion within one year of the latest of specified events, including when the conviction becomes final or when supporting facts could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The conclusion directed appointed counsel to file the amended motion within 60 days. If Starkes did not wish to proceed, the conclusion stated that counsel could notify the court within 30 days that Starkes wanted to withdraw the action. If counsel did not respond, the letter would remain designated as a § 2255 motion, and the United States Attorney’s Office could be directed to respond. No response was required at that time.

Appointment of Counsel

The court explained that the Constitution and federal law did not give Starkes an automatic right to government-funded counsel for preparing a § 2255 motion. However, federal law permits a court to appoint counsel for a financially eligible person when the interests of justice require it.

Applying the factors used to assess whether a post-conviction claim appears substantial and whether counsel would assist with investigating and presenting it, the court found that appointment was warranted. In particular, the court relied on Starkes’s statement that his counsel had failed to request a competency evaluation. The court appointed counsel from the Criminal Justice Act Habeas Panel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The order did not decide whether Starkes’s conviction or sentence was unlawful, whether his counsel was ineffective, or whether he was entitled to any relief under § 2255. The court stated that Starkes had not then made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain appeals from federal post-conviction orders. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal’s filing costs.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore construed the letter as a § 2255 motion, appointed counsel, and directed the filing of an amended motion; the order did not reach the merits of Starkes’s claims.