United States District Court, S.D. New York
October 6, 2005.
IRVING MASON, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN KEENAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On August 9, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
("Order") denying Petitioner Irving Mason's motion to vacate, set
aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mason
filed a notice of appeal, but the Second Circuit dismissed the
appeal without prejudice to re-filing after Mason moved this
Court for a certificate of appealability ("COA"). See
28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (1) (B). Mason now moves for the COA on the issue of
ineffective assistance of counsel. (Ltr. from B. Fallick to Court
(Aug. 22, 2005)). The Government opposes the application. (Ltr.
from AUSA K. Lemire to Court (Oct. 5, 2005)).
In his 2255 petition, Mason contended that his Sixth Amendment
rights were violated because of the ineffectiveness of counsel
for his co-defendant, Aldo Mitchell ("Mitchell"). While the Court
agreed that a defendant may assert an ineffectiveness claim for
the first time on collateral attack, Massaro v. United States,
538 U.S. 500, 503-04 (2003), the Court found no case extending the holding of Massaro to ineffectiveness claims
against a co-defendant's counsel. (Order at 6). If the denial of
Mason's 2255 petition rested on this finding alone, the Court
might be inclined to grant the COA. The Court made clear,
however, that it was unnecessary to reach that issue because
Mason could not show that the alleged ineffectiveness prejudiced
him or that Mitchell's counsel acted below an objective standard
of reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 690, 694 (1984). The Court's Strickland analysis was
thorough and need not be repeated here. (See Order at 6-8).
The Court is satisfied that no reasonable jurist would disagree
with the Court's resolution of the ineffectiveness claim and that
the issue requires no further pursuit. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). Mason's application for a
COA is denied.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.