United States District Court, Northern District of New York
March 4, 2002
TONY LAMAR MENEFIELD, PETITIONER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard G. Munson, Sr. J.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside
or correct the sentence of imprisonment he received on November 5, 1997,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
On April 16, 1997, following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine and/or cocaine base in (crack) violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 846(a)(1). On November 5, 1997,
petitioner was sentenced to a period of 360 months imprisonment and ten
years supervised release. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on April
13, 2000, United States v. Giles, et al., 210 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2000)
(Table), 2000 WL 424142 (2d Cir. 2000).
Petitioner contends that his sentence should be vacated and he
should be resentenced in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348,
147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the Court ruled that, as a matter of due
process, any factor which increases a sentence beyond the statutory
minimum is an element of the offense rather than a mere sentencing
factor, the existence of which must be submitted to a jury and proved
beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner claims that at least part of his
151 month sentence was due to factors that should have been proven as
elements of the offense under the Apprendi standard. As a result he
seeks reduction of his sentence and supervised release term under the new
due process standard.
Respondent maintains that petitioner's contentions are without merit
because his Apprendi or Apprendi type argument has been procedurally
defaulted because it was not properly raised at trial or on direct
appeal, and, even if it had been raised, the holding in Apprendi cannot be
applied retroactively to petitioner's case on collateral review.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.