Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Palmer v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. New York

July 31, 2018

CHARLES KRIS PALMER, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM M. SKRETNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before this Court is the Motion of pro se Petitioner Charles Kris Palmer to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and his motion to compel release of § 3500 materials. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's motions are denied.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 10, 2003, Petitioner appeared before the Honorable Richard J. Arcara and pleaded guilty to a one-count Information, charging a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846 (conspiracy to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base). (See Docket No. 35.)[1] Before accepting Petitioner's waiver of indictment, Judge Arcara informed Petitioner at length about his right to have the allegations heard by a grand jury, the reasons for and importance of a grand jury and indictment, and the workings of the grand jury. Judge Arcara asked several times whether Petitioner understood and gave him an opportunity to ask questions. Petitioner affirmed his understanding and assent to waive indictment. (Docket No. 100-1 at 10-16.)

         Based on Petitioner's representations, as well as observation of Petitioner's behavior and affect, Judge Arcara found Petitioner's waiver to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligently made. (Id. at 16.) Following a discussion of the terms and the conditions of plea agreement, Judge Arcara accepted Petitioner's guilty plea to the charge contained in the information and adjudged him guilty. (Id. at 16-47.)

         On July 13, 2005, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 93 months to be followed by a term of supervised release of 5 years. Judgment was entered on July 19, 2005. (Docket No. 65.) Petitioner filed no direct appeal, nor did he file a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

         Following Petitioner's release from custody under case number 03-CR-132, he was charged in an indictment (11-CR-202) with additional crimes. On August 13, 2014, the original case (03-CR-132) was transferred from Judge Arcara to this Court and, on December 22, 2014, Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count 1 of Indictment in 11-CR-202, which alleged a violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. On that same date, Petitioner also pleaded guilty before this Court to Charge 1 on the Violation Petition (03-CR-132). (Docket Nos. 88, 89.)

         On April 22, 2015, this Court sentenced Petitioner to a term of 12 years imprisonment for his plea of guilty to Count 1 of Indictment 11-CR-202 and a concurrent term of 51 months on his plea to Charge 1 in the Violation Petition for 03-CR-132. (Docket No. 95.) Both judgments were entered on April 29, 2015.

         Petitioner filed the present motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on April 15, 2016, arguing that Judge Arcara erred in waiving indictment on his 2003 conviction and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the error. (Docket No. 97.) The government responded to Petitioner's motion on May 31, 2016. (Docket No. 100.) Thereafter, on July 28, 2016, Petitioner moved to withdraw his § 2255 motion and for an extension of time to file a new § 2255 motion. (Docket No. 103.) He also sought to compel production of “relevant 3500 documentation concerning the corruption and eventual federal indictments” from federal criminal cases involving Darnyl Parker and Paul D. Skinner.[2] (Docket No. 103 at 2.) Petitioner contends, without further detail, that “this documentation will be invaluable in vacating a 1998 conviction involving these officers, which caused him to be sentenced as a career criminal for all his convictions thereafter.” (Id.)

         III. DISCUSSION

         Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 2255 allows federal prisoners to challenge the constitutionality of their sentences. That section provides, in pertinent part, that:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The Second Circuit has held that a “collateral attack on a final judgment in a criminal case is generally available under § 2255 only for a constitutional error, a lack of jurisdiction in the sentencing court, or an error of law or fact that constitutes a fundamental defect which inherently results in complete miscarriage of justice.” Graziano v. United States, 83 F.3d 587, 589-90 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Bokun, 73 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Petitioner bears the burden of proving such a fundamental defect by preponderance ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.