Hughes v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-04967
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hughes v. United States, Judge Caproni reappointed counsel for Hughes’s challenge to his conviction and ordered the parties to plan next steps.
John Hughes, whose counsel was reappointed for his petition seeking to vacate his conviction; the United States, which was ordered to state whether it would oppose the petition.
What happened
John Hughes asked the court to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.
The court found that Hughes was financially eligible for appointed counsel and that his petition might have merit. It reappointed Edward Sapone, Hughes’s previously appointed lawyer, to represent him.
Judge Caproni ordered the parties to confer by July 24, 2020, and report whether the government would oppose the petition. The order did not decide whether Hughes’s conviction should be vacated.
The detailed version
- Hughes v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-04967
- Valerie Caproni
- July 1, 2020
Background
John Hughes petitioned to vacate his judgment of conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, relying on United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The opinion also references criminal docket number 15-CV-0537-17 (VEC), and the court directed that future filings include that criminal docket number.
Appointment of Counsel
The court stated that it may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person when the interests of justice require it. Hughes had previously been found financially eligible, and the court stated that his petition might have merit. The court determined that the requirements for appointing counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) were met.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court reappointed Edward Sapone, Hughes’s previously appointed counsel, as habeas counsel. The parties were ordered to confer and notify the court by July 24, 2020, whether the government intended to oppose the petition. If the government opposed it, the parties were to propose a schedule for an amended petition and the government’s response. If the government did not oppose it, the parties were to propose a date for a hearing on vacating Hughes’s conviction and other next steps. The order addressed counsel and case management; it did not rule on the merits of Hughes’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.