Martin v. United States

Background

Kareem Martin, representing himself, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. After a jury trial, he was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and at least 280 grams of crack cocaine, and of brandishing a firearm in connection with that drug-trafficking offense. The court sentenced him to 22 years in prison followed by five years of supervised release.

At sentencing, the court treated Martin as a career offender and calculated a Guidelines range of 444 months to life imprisonment, including the mandatory consecutive sentence for the firearm count. The court imposed a substantially lower 22-year sentence. The Second Circuit affirmed Martin’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied review.

Claims and analysis

Martin raised three general categories of claims: ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel, an unreasonable sentence, and a due-process claim based on the government’s alleged failure to disclose favorable evidence concerning security guards at the public housing complex where the drug activity occurred.

Under the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel, Martin had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the alleged error probably affected the result. The court rejected Martin’s trial-counsel claims. It found that not calling co-defendant Anthony Givens was a reasonable strategic decision, particularly because Givens had pleaded guilty and appeared in a video involving Martin. Martin also failed to show that Givens would have testified as Martin claimed or that the testimony would likely have changed the verdict.

The court likewise found no ineffective assistance in counsel’s failure to introduce Martin’s earlier lawsuit against New York City, because Martin did not show why that lawsuit was relevant to the charged conduct or how it could have changed the outcome. The court found that counsel had cross-examined several government witnesses and that Martin had not shown how additional or different questioning would probably have changed the verdict. It also found that counsel had requested security incident reports and that Martin did not identify what additional exculpatory evidence counsel should have found or explain how it would have affected the trial.

The court rejected Martin’s claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to meet with him in person and for not raising additional arguments. Martin did not explain how the lack of a meeting affected the appeal or identify additional grounds that would likely have produced a different result.

The court held that Martin’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence was procedurally barred because he had raised the same issue on direct appeal, where the Second Circuit rejected it. A claim is procedurally barred when a court will not reconsider it in a later proceeding because it was already litigated or otherwise cannot be raised at that stage.

Finally, the court rejected Martin’s due-process claim under Brady v. Maryland, which requires disclosure of material favorable evidence. The court found that the government had provided trial counsel with security-related incident logs and that Martin had not specifically identified undisclosed material or shown how it would have helped his defense.

Disposition

The court denied the § 2255 petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Martin 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 proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending criminal motion and close the civil case.