Morris v. United States
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-04970
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Morris v. United States, Judge Cote transferred Morris’s successive petition to the Court of Appeals because it lacked authorization to decide it.
Tyquan Morris, whose later challenge to his guilty plea was transferred to the Court of Appeals because the District Court could not decide it without appellate authorization.
What happened
Morris v. United States concerns Tyquan Morris’s attempt to challenge his guilty plea. After an earlier petition was denied on the merits, Morris sought to add a new argument that he had not been adequately told that the ammunition involved in his crime had traveled between states.
Because the new filing challenged the same conviction, the court treated it as a second or successive petition. Federal law required Morris to obtain permission from the Court of Appeals before filing it in the District Court.
Judge Cote ruled that the District Court lacked authority to decide the filing and ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer it to the Court of Appeals for treatment as a successive petition. The order also discussed potential problems with Morris’s arguments but did not decide the new petition on its merits.
The detailed version
- Morris v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-04970
- Denise Cote
- June 25, 2020
Background
Morris previously filed a petition challenging his federal conviction. The District Court denied that petition on March 5, 2019. During that earlier proceeding, Morris abandoned his challenge to his guilty plea and instead sought resentencing.
In a motion received on August 15, 2019, Morris sought to add a new challenge to his guilty plea. He argued that, when he pleaded guilty, an element of his crime—that the ammunition he possessed had traveled in interstate commerce—had not been adequately explained to him.
Successive-petition requirement
The court treated Morris’s new filing as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because it attacked the validity of his federal conviction. A second or successive motion is one raising claims about the same conviction or sentence after an earlier petition has been decided on the merits. Under §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), the applicant must first obtain certification or authorization from the appropriate Court of Appeals before filing a successive motion in the District Court.
The court found that Morris’s 2019 Petition concerned the same conviction addressed in his 2018 Petition, which had been decided on the merits. Because Morris had not obtained authorization from the Court of Appeals, the District Court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the 2019 Petition.
Court’s discussion of the proposed claim
The court noted that, during Morris’s May 19, 2016 plea proceeding, it had advised him that the indictment alleged that the bullets had been transported in interstate commerce before he possessed them. The Government also represented that it could show the ammunition had been manufactured outside New York State.
The court further stated that any deficiency in the plea proceeding ordinarily had to be raised first on direct appeal. It also explained that an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to challenge the plea proceeding would require Morris to show both objectively unreasonable representation and prejudice. Because the court found no error in the plea proceeding, it stated that Morris could not show prejudice. These observations did not replace the ruling that the District Court lacked authority to decide the successive petition.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the 2019 Petition to the Court of Appeals for treatment as a successive petition. The order transferred the filing; it did not state that the petition was dismissed.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.