Steele v. United States

Background

Joseph Steele, representing himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He was convicted after a jury trial of possessing a firearm as a felon. Steele alleged that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to call Vanessa Martinez, a forensic criminalist with the New York Police Department laboratory; failing to call Officer Perdomo about a glove recovered from Steele; and failing to introduce the glove into evidence.

After Steele reported that a COVID-19-related lockdown at his facility had prevented him from conducting proper research, the court directed the Clerk to send him an application for volunteer legal counsel. The court considered Steele’s applications to proceed without paying filing fees and for volunteer counsel.

Legal Standard

A person has no automatic constitutional right to a lawyer in a post-conviction proceeding under § 2255. The court may appoint volunteer counsel for a financially eligible person when the interests of justice require it. Relevant considerations include the likely merit of the claims, the complexity of the legal issues, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case. A self-represented litigant must first show that the claims are likely to have merit.

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show both that the lawyer’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Prejudice requires a substantial likelihood that the result would have been different, not merely a conceivable possibility.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Steele had not shown likely merit. Regarding the glove, the court reasoned that introducing it could have strengthened the government’s explanation for why Steele’s DNA was not found on the firearm: Steele could have handled the gun while wearing the glove. The court also noted that the glove’s DNA report neither confirmed nor denied the presence of Steele’s DNA and would not have exonerated him.

The court likewise found no substantial likelihood that Martinez’s testimony would have changed the trial result. Although she could have testified that no gunshot residue was found on Steele’s jacket, the government could have questioned her about the unreliability of the test results and possible reasons residue was not found. The court also cited other evidence connecting Steele to the firearm, including eyewitness testimony, an officer’s observations during the chase, the firearm and shell casing, and surveillance video.

The court found that Steele’s claims were not legally complex because they mainly required assessing whether particular evidence could have affected the jury’s decision in light of the other trial evidence. It also acknowledged that the lockdown limited Steele’s ability to research but concluded that this difficulty could be addressed through other means, including procedural assistance and, if needed, more time to file his reply.

Disposition

The court granted Steele’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It denied his application for volunteer counsel without prejudice. The court also granted Steele an additional 30 days from the date of the order to file his reply to the government’s memorandum opposing his § 2255 motion. Judge Victor Marrero signed the order.