Boykin v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-03146
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Boykin v. United States, Judge McMahon appointed counsel and set deadlines for a prisoner’s successive challenge without deciding its merits.
Anthony Boykin, his appointed counsel Sarah E. Aberg, and the United States government.
What happened
In Boykin v. United States, Anthony Boykin asked the Southern District of New York to consider a successive motion challenging his federal convictions and sentence under a law allowing federal prisoners to seek that relief. The Second Circuit had authorized the filing, based mainly on a Supreme Court decision concerning firearm convictions.
Boykin had previously received a life sentence plus 32 years and had already filed an earlier challenge that the court denied. He filed the new motion without a lawyer, and the court appointed Sarah E. Aberg from the Criminal Justice Act panel to represent him.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered Aberg to report within 30 days about how she would proceed. If she supplemented Boykin’s filing, she had 60 days to file the supplemental papers, and the government then had 30 days to respond. The court expressly did not decide whether Boykin’s motion had merit, was timely, or was procedurally proper.
The detailed version
- Boykin v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-03146
- Colleen McMahon
- May 10, 2021
Background
Anthony Boykin was convicted of racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering; murder and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering; assault and attempted murder in aid of racketeering; conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine; and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense and a crime of violence. The court sentenced him to life in prison plus 32 years. The opinion states that the convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Boykin previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court denied that motion on September 21, 2018, and the appeal was dismissed. On April 5, 2021, the Second Circuit authorized Boykin to file another, successive § 2255 motion and transferred the matter to the district court. The new motion was based primarily on United States v. Davis, a Supreme Court decision. The opinion notes Boykin’s argument that one of his firearm convictions was no longer supported by a valid underlying offense after Davis.
Order
The court appointed Sarah E. Aberg from the Criminal Justice Act panel to represent Boykin in connection with the § 2255 motion. It directed counsel to review Boykin’s filings and report within 30 days on how she wished to proceed. If counsel decided to supplement Boykin’s filing, the supplemental papers were due within 60 days, followed by a 30-day period for the government to respond.
The order did not decide the merits, timeliness, or procedural correctness of Boykin’s filings. It therefore addressed representation and scheduling rather than whether Boykin was entitled to relief. The court appointed counsel and set filing deadlines.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.