Carlisle v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-00939
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Carlisle v. United States, Judge Briccetti treated Carlisle’s letter as a post-conviction motion, allowed amendment, appointed counsel, and denied an appeal certificate.
Diondre Carlisle, whose Section 2255 challenge was allowed to proceed in amended form with appointed counsel; the government had not yet been required to respond.
What happened
In United States v. Diondre Carlisle, Carlisle had pleaded guilty to three federal offenses and received an 84-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release. He later sent a letter asking the court to set aside his firearm conviction based on a Supreme Court decision finding part of the firearm statute unconstitutional.
The court treated the letter as a motion to challenge the conviction or sentence under Section 2255, even though Carlisle had not filed the formal motion. The court gave him until April 6, 2020, to file an amended motion or withdraw it, and appointed Kelley J. Sharkey as his lawyer. The court also said it would not yet require the government to respond.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide whether Carlisle was entitled to relief and expressed doubt that the Supreme Court decision applied to his case. The court denied a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal costs.
The detailed version
- Carlisle v. United States · No. 7:20-cv-00939
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
On June 27, 2016, Diondre Carlisle pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conduct the affairs of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence and a drug-trafficking crime. On December 12, 2016, the court sentenced him to 84 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The sentences were 24 months on the first two counts, running at the same time, and 60 months on the firearm count, running consecutively. Carlisle did not appeal.
On January 9, 2020, the court received Carlisle’s handwritten letter asking, in substance, that his firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) be set aside based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. Davis held that the definition of “crime of violence” in Section 924(c)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague.
Court’s Action
Although Carlisle had not filed a formal motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court construed his letter as a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under that statute. Because the letter was brief, the court granted Carlisle leave to file an amended motion stating all grounds for relief and the facts supporting them. The court gave him until April 6, 2020, either to file the amended motion or to notify the court in writing that he wished to withdraw the motion.
The court appointed Kelley J. Sharkey, the lawyer who had represented Carlisle in the underlying criminal case, to represent him in the Section 2255 proceeding. The court found that appointment was warranted because Carlisle appeared to be indigent and because the law concerning the Supreme Court’s Davis decision was complex and developing. The court directed Sharkey to use the attached Section 2255 form and file the amended motion by April 6, 2020.
The court did not decide whether Davis entitled Carlisle to relief. It stated that Carlisle’s firearm conviction appeared to have been based on both the racketeering conspiracy in Count One and the drug-trafficking conspiracy in Count Two, and that the court was doubtful that Davis applied. The court also did not yet require the United States Attorney’s Office to file an answer or other response. It said the government would be directed to respond if Carlisle filed an amended motion or did not respond to the order by April 6, 2020.
Disposition
The court granted Carlisle leave to file an amended Section 2255 motion and appointed Kelley J. Sharkey as counsel for that motion. At that time, the court did not direct the government to respond. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Carlisle had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal costs for the appeal.
The clerk was instructed to open a new civil action and docket the order and Carlisle’s letter in both the new civil case and the existing criminal case. The order did not resolve the merits of Carlisle’s challenge to his firearm conviction.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.