Stevens v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:21-cv-06152
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Stevens v. United States, Judge Wood granted counsel’s withdrawal, appointed replacement counsel, and ordered Stevens to explain why his Section 2255 claims should not be barred.
Terrell Stevens, his appointed counsel Lance A. Clarke and Benjamin Zeman, and the United States as the opposing party in the Section 2255 proceeding.
What happened
In Stevens v. United States, Terrell Stevens filed a document that the court treated as a petition challenging his federal conviction or sentence. The court had previously noted that the filing came more than three years after his conviction became final and that some arguments might be barred because he had not raised them on direct appeal.
Stevens’s appointed lawyer, Lance A. Clarke, asked to withdraw, citing an unresolvable disagreement with Stevens about whether the petition was too late. The court granted the request, appointed Benjamin Zeman to advise Stevens, and ordered Stevens to explain by August 20, 2021, why his claims should not be barred.
Judge Kimba M. Wood also ruled that the filing would be formally treated as a petition under Section 2255, that the government did not need to file another response at that time, and that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Stevens v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-06152
- Kimba Wood
- July 19, 2021
Background
On March 10, 2021, Terrell Stevens moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and asked the court to appoint counsel. The court denied that motion in all respects on April 12, 2021.
On March 19, 2021, Stevens filed a document titled “Affidavit of Truth / Due Process Violation / Breach of Plea.” The court treated that filing as Stevens’s first petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. The court appointed Criminal Justice Act counsel, Lance A. Clarke, and gave Stevens the choice of withdrawing the filing or explaining why his claims should not be barred. The court had noted that the filing was submitted more than three years after Stevens’s conviction became final and that some arguments might be procedurally barred because Stevens had not raised them on direct appeal.
Counsel’s Withdrawal
Stevens made additional submissions, including requests for new counsel. Clarke moved to withdraw, stating that he and Stevens disagreed about the relevant law concerning whether the Section 2255 petition should be denied as time-barred and that the disagreement prevented Clarke from effectively advising Stevens. Based on their submissions, the court found an irreconcilable conflict between Stevens and Clarke.
Rulings
The court ordered the following:
- Clarke’s motion to withdraw was GRANTED.
- Stevens’s March 19 submission was construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the clerk was directed to designate it accordingly.
- Benjamin Zeman, the Criminal Justice Act counsel on duty, was appointed to advise Stevens about the March 19 submission, the court’s April 12 opinion, and Stevens’s recent filings.
- Stevens was ordered to show cause by August 20, 2021, why the claims in his March 19 submission should not be denied as barred.
- The court stated that Stevens had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue.
- The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
- Because the government had already filed a substantive opposition, the court required no further answer at that time.
- The clerk was directed to mail Stevens a copy of the order.
This order did not decide the underlying Section 2255 claims. It addressed counsel, the filing’s classification, and whether Stevens could overcome possible procedural bars.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.