Martin v. United States

Background

Kareem Martin, who was incarcerated at the time, had pleaded guilty before the court to two carjackings resulting in death and received prison terms totaling 40 years. He appealed but voluntarily withdrew the appeal, which the Second Circuit closed on February 11, 2020.

Martin sent a letter asking for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal procedure for asking the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence. He said he had rejected a plea offer of “0 to 30 years” because his attorney did not clearly explain that the offer did not require cooperation with the government. Martin asserted that he would have accepted the offer had he known about it. He attributed his delay in filing to prison transfers, lockdowns, punitive segregation, and other pandemic-related disruptions. He also sought appointment of counsel and stated that he intended to seek compassionate release.

Amended sentence challenge

The court explained that an extension of time for a § 2255 motion generally may be considered only after an actual § 2255 motion has been filed. Because Martin’s letter stated a substantive claim, the court construed the letter as a § 2255 motion and docketed it as such. The court granted Martin leave to file an amended § 2255 motion identifying all grounds for relief and summarizing the supporting facts.

The court did not decide whether Martin’s motion was timely. It explained that a federal prisoner generally has one year from the latest of several dates, including when the conviction becomes final, to file a § 2255 motion. Because Martin voluntarily withdrew his appeal, the court said it was unclear when his conviction became final. The court also stated that, if the motion later proved untimely, Martin’s alleged prison and pandemic-related disruptions could potentially support extending the filing period for exceptional circumstances. The amended motion therefore had to include facts showing that Martin pursued his rights diligently and that extraordinary circumstances prevented an earlier filing.

Request for counsel

The court stated that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in § 2255 proceedings, although federal law permits appointment when the interests of justice require it for an eligible person. After considering the likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, and Martin’s ability to investigate and present the case, the court found that appointment of counsel was not warranted at that time. The motion for counsel was denied without prejudice to renewal later.

Disposition

Martin was directed to file an amended § 2255 motion with all grounds for relief and supporting facts, including facts explaining why he could not file sooner, by July 9, 2021. The court stated that it would later review the amended motion for substantive sufficiency and that an order requiring the United States to answer was not then required. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal. The opinion did not decide the merits of Martin’s ineffective-assistance claim or the timeliness issue.