We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WAS IT OVER WHEN THE GERMANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?

“Hell, no!” Animal House’s Bluto Blutarsky shouted. He could have been arguing about the mess a district court made of deciding only part of Floyd Clark’s  motion.

Floyd was convicted of kidnapping and beating a man. After hewas convicted, the victim recanted his testimony identifying Floyd as his assailant. Floyd filed a 28 USC § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, denial of his due process rights (based on the recantation) and a claim that his 18 USC § 924(c) use-of-a-gun conviction should be thrown out, based on Johnson v. United States.

The district court denied all of Floyd’s issues except for the § 924(c) claim. The district judge deferred judgment on the gun argument, saying his opinion “resolves three of Mr. Clark’s claims but leaves the § 2255 motion open until the Court is able to resolve his fourth claim,” because United States v. Davis was pending in the Supreme Court. Floyd appealed the denied claims.

Last week, the DC Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Floyd’s district court denial was not final. “Because it leaves Clark’s 924(c) claim pending,” the Circuit ruled, “the district court’s order appears nonfinal on its face. A judgment is typically final only when the whole case is complete… We consider an order ‘final’ if it ‘terminates’ the case and leaves nothing for the court but [to] execute the judgment. This final-judgment rule — derived from the common law and codified since the First Congress — has long promoted efficient judicial administration by avoiding the delay and expense of piecemeal appeals.”

It isn’t uncommon for district court § 2255 denials to omit deciding a claim, especially where the inmate’s petition raises a lot of grounds. This decision suggests prisoners should be assertive when a district court opinion purports to resolve a § 2255 petition without deciding every issues raised.

United States v Clark, Case No 19-3040, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32644 (DC Cir Oct 16, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root