Brown v. United States
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-10067
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. United States, Judge Roman denied Lawrence Brown’s challenge to his conviction and sentence without prejudice because his direct appeal was pending.
Lawrence Brown’s motion was denied without prejudice, while the court did not decide the underlying challenges to his conviction or sentence; the United States remained the respondent.
What happened
In Brown v. United States, Lawrence Brown, who was representing himself, asked the court to set aside or change his conviction and sentence. He had been convicted of two robberies and of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence.
The court said the request was premature because Brown’s direct appeal was still pending. It declined to decide the challenge while the same matter could be affected by the appeal, to avoid conflicting decisions or wasted effort.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the request without prejudice, meaning the order did not permanently bar the motion. The court also said that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Brown v. United States · No. 7:20-cv-10067
- Nelson Roman
- Dec. 3, 2020
Background
Lawrence Brown, appearing without a lawyer and incarcerated at F.C.I. Ray Brook, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. Brown challenged his conviction and sentence in this case.
The opinion states that Brown had been convicted of two counts of robbery and of brandishing a firearm while committing a crime of violence. He initially received prison terms totaling 468 months. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction but sent the case back for resentencing. The district court later resentenced Brown to 303 months, and an appeal from that resentencing was pending when this order was issued.
Issue and reasoning
The court considered whether to decide Brown’s § 2255 motion while his direct appeal was pending. The court explained that it was not strictly barred from considering the motion, but it concluded that doing so could create confusion or waste judicial resources. The direct appeal could affect the issues before the court, potentially making a decision on the § 2255 motion ineffective or unnecessary. For that reason, the court treated the motion as premature and did not reach the underlying challenges to Brown’s conviction or sentence.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the § 2255 motion without prejudice as premature. The order therefore did not permanently bar the motion. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Brown had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion on the criminal docket and mail Brown a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.