Hilliard v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-08151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Hilliard v. United States, Judge Briccetti denied Hilliard’s unclear request without prejudice and required conviction challenges to use Section 2255.
Rosheen Hilliard’s attempted challenge to his federal conviction or sentence was not considered on the merits; he may file a properly formatted Section 2255 motion.
What happened
In Hilliard v. United States, Rosheen Hilliard sent the court a letter that appeared to seek release because his sentence allegedly violated federal law and the Constitution. The court said it was unclear what relief he wanted or what legal procedure he was using.
The court declined to treat the letter as a proper challenge to Hilliard’s conviction or sentence. It denied any requested relief without prejudice, meaning Hilliard could file a properly formatted motion under Section 2255, the federal procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also said the government did not need to respond at that time, denied a certificate allowing an appeal, and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The order did not decide whether Hilliard’s conviction or sentence was lawful.
The detailed version
- Hilliard v. United States · No. 7:20-cv-08151
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
Rosheen Hilliard previously told the court that he did not wish to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In a November 23, 2020 memorandum opinion and order, the court therefore did not treat his September 29 submission as a motion under Section 2255.
Hilliard then submitted a December 1 letter. The court found the letter lengthy and difficult to understand. According to the court, Hilliard appeared to say both that he was not challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence and that he wanted to be released because his sentence had been imposed in violation of the Constitution and federal laws.
Ruling
Because it was unclear what relief Hilliard sought and what procedural method he intended to use, the court stated that it would not treat the letter as a proper challenge to his conviction or sentence. To the extent Hilliard requested relief in the letter, the court denied that request without prejudice to his filing a Section 2255 motion in the proper form. The court instructed that it would not consider challenges to his conviction or sentence except through a properly filed Section 2255 motion and attached the required form and filing instructions.
The court also ordered that the government did not need to file an answer at that time. It said that if Hilliard filed a proper Section 2255 motion, the court would direct the government to respond. The court further ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Hilliard had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
Effect of the Order
The order did not decide the merits of any challenge to Hilliard’s conviction or sentence. It addressed only the form and procedure for seeking that relief.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.