Rice v. Collin

Background

Daniel Rice, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his 2004 federal sentence. He claimed that his first lawyer, Christopher Chan, failed to file a notice of appeal after Rice instructed him to do so. Rice sought resentencing so that he could file a new appeal.

Rice pleaded guilty to narcotics and weapons charges in 2003. Judge John E. Sprizzo sentenced him on July 13, 2004, to 144 months in prison and four years of supervised release. The next day, Rice filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later dismissed the appeal because Rice had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. The sentence was later reduced to 132 months and then to 120 months.

Conversion to a Section 2255 Motion

The court ruled that Rice’s filing was not properly brought under Section 2241 because he was challenging his federal conviction and sentence. A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is generally the proper procedure for a federal prisoner seeking that type of relief. The court rejected Rice’s argument that Section 2255 was unavailable because his lawyer allegedly failed to file an appeal, explaining that Rice’s second lawyer did file a notice of appeal.

The court gave Rice 60 days to notify the court if he wanted to withdraw the filing. If he did not withdraw it, the filing would remain designated as a Section 2255 motion.

Custody Requirement

The court said a person generally must be serving the conviction or sentence being challenged when filing a post-conviction petition. Rice was being held by the New York City Department of Correction on an unrelated charge. Based on its review of the criminal proceedings, the court concluded that Rice’s 10-year prison sentence and four-year supervised-release term appeared to have expired. Even counting from the July 13, 2004 judgment, the court said the sentence would have expired by approximately 2018. The court therefore concluded that Rice appeared not to be in the custody required to challenge that conviction under Section 2255.

Statute of Limitations

The court separately explained that, even if Rice could show that he was still serving the challenged sentence, his motion appeared untimely. Section 2255 generally requires a motion to be filed within one year of the latest of several specified dates, including when the conviction becomes final or when the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. Rice placed his application in the prison mail collection box on October 1, 2020, nearly 15 years after the judgment was upheld on appeal and the time to seek review by the United States Supreme Court had expired.

Order to Show Cause and Disposition

The court directed Rice to show cause—that is, to provide facts explaining why the motion should not be denied—within 60 days. Rice was required to state facts showing that he was still serving the 2004 sentence and that the motion was not barred by the filing deadline. He could also present facts supporting timely pursuit of his rights and extraordinary circumstances that prevented an earlier filing.

The court construed the application as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and directed the clerk to designate the case accordingly. It did not deny the motion at this stage. Instead, it stated that the motion would be denied if Rice failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure. No response from the United States was required at that time. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The opinion does not state that the motion was ultimately denied.