Bright v. United States
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-04524
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bright v. United States, Judge Failla ordered responses and appointed counsel on Bright’s motion to reconsider denial of his conviction challenge.
Frank Bright, the United States, Bright’s prior defense counsel, and the appointed counsel assisting Bright with his reconsideration reply.
What happened
In Bright v. United States, Frank Bright asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion to vacate his conviction. He had pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit a Hobbs Act robbery and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Bright argued that his lawyers should have advised him about the Government’s decision not to seek another charging document and should have challenged the indictment. He also raised a new argument that he could not have joined an illegal robbery conspiracy because he believed the drugs involved were fake.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide the reconsideration motion in this order. She ordered the Government to respond by February 29, 2024, allowed Bright to reply by April 19, 2024, and appointed his prior appellate counsel to assist with that reply.
The detailed version
- Bright v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-04524
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 2, 2024
Background
The court had previously denied Frank Bright’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for asking the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence. Bright then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision.
Bright had pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery. During his plea, he stated that he had agreed with another person to rob oxycodone pills from two drug dealers and that someone was shot and killed during the robbery. The court accepted the plea and sentenced him principally to 20 years’ imprisonment.
Earlier § 2255 Motion
In the earlier motion, Bright and the court understood him to be raising two ineffective-assistance claims. He argued that his prior counsel failed to tell him that the Government had disclaimed an intention to seek a superseding charging instrument, and that he would have gone to trial if he had known. He also argued that counsel should have moved to dismiss the indictment because it did not identify the object of the robbery. After reviewing sworn statements from prior counsel and the parties’ submissions, the court denied both parts of that motion.
Motion for Reconsideration
Bright’s reconsideration motion asserted an additional argument. He contended that he believed the controlled substances offered to co-defendant John Duncan were fake. On that basis, he argued that he could not have conspired with Duncan to violate the Hobbs Act and that prior counsel therefore gave ineffective assistance by advising him to plead guilty.
The court identified possible issues concerning the timeliness of the reconsideration motion and the difference between Bright’s current description of fake drugs and his plea statement referring to oxycodone. The court did not resolve those issues or decide whether reconsideration was warranted.
Order
The court directed the Government to respond to the reconsideration motion by February 29, 2024. The Government could include additional sworn statements or information from Bright’s prior counsel if it believed those materials would assist the court. Bright was directed to file any reply by April 19, 2024.
Because of the issues raised, Judge Failla appointed counsel for Bright under the Criminal Justice Act. The court reappointed Bright’s prior appellate counsel, Brian Jacobs, and the law firm Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC, to represent him in connection with the reconsideration motion. The order therefore required further submissions and appointed counsel; it did not grant or deny the reconsideration motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.