From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gerrish v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Maine
Jan 25, 2005
353 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Me. 2005)

Summary

holding that facts alluded to in an unsworn memorandum for habeas relief are insufficient

Summary of this case from United States v. Greene

Opinion

Nos. CIV.04-153-P-H, CIV.04-154-P-H.

January 25, 2005.

Lisa Anne Gerrish, Pro Se, Alderson, WV.

Margaret D. McGaughey, F. Mark Terison, Office Of The United States Attorney, District Of Maine, Portland, ME, for United States of America, Respondent.


ORDER


The applications for certificates of appealability are DENIED.

1. Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, Nos. 04-104, 04-105, 2005 WL 50108 (Jan. 12, 2005), are not applicable to cases that were not on direct appeal when they were decided. By its very terms, Booker states that it is to apply "to all cases on direct review." 2005 WL 50108, at *29 (2005), with no reference to cases on collateral review. There is no reason to treat Blakely any differently. These cases furnish no basis, therefore, to attack the length of the petitioners' sentences or, in Blaine Gerrish's case, the amount of the fine. See Orchard v. United States, 332 F. Supp.2d 275, 277 (D. Me. 2004) (concluding that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review); cf. Sepulveda v. United States, 330 F.3d 55, 63 (1st Cir. 2003) (determining that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the decision underlying Blakely andBooker, applies only on direct appeal, not on a section 2255 motion);Schriro v. Summerlin, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2526 (2004) (holding that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), which, like Blakely and Booker, applied and extended the reasoning of Apprendi, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review).

The petitioners, husband and wife, have filed virtually identical motions. The only significant difference is that Blaine Gerrish also attacks his fine. (No fine was imposed on Lisa Gerrish.)

2. There is no basis for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As the Magistrate Judge concluded, according to the petitioners' version there was a discussion with counsel about appeal within the meaning ofRoe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 486 (2000). The Supreme Court has ruled that in such a context, "Counsel performs in a professionally unreasonable manner only by failing to follow the defendant's express instructions with respect to an appeal." Id. at 478. Here, the petitioners allege that upon the initial request to take an appeal, there was a discussion about cost and that following that discussion, no appeal was taken. That is not enough to meet the standard of Flores-Ortega. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to submit the allegations under penalty of perjury as required by Rule 2(b)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. LaBonte, 70 F.3d 1396, 1413 (1st Cir. 1995) ("A habeas application must rest on a foundation of factual allegations presented under oath either in a verified petition or a supporting affidavit. . . . Facts alluded to in an unsworn memorandum will not suffice.") (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds, 520 U.S. 751 (1997).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gerrish v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Maine
Jan 25, 2005
353 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Me. 2005)

holding that facts alluded to in an unsworn memorandum for habeas relief are insufficient

Summary of this case from United States v. Greene

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Martinez v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Garcia-Rodriguez v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from BECK v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Ellis v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Allen v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Larsen v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Hernandez v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Huasica-Moreno v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Valdivia-Olvera v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Turner v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Greco v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Rocin-Soto v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from MAES v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from LACH v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Garcia-Corona v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Collier v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Vega-Gil v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Garibay-Anguiano v. U.S.

holding that neither Blakely nor Booker applies retroactively to § 2255 motions

Summary of this case from Clarke v. U.S.

holding that neither Booker nor Blakely apply retroactively to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from Brown v. U.S.

holding that Blakely and Booker "are not applicable to cases that were not on direct appeal when they were decided."

Summary of this case from Askanazi v. U.S.

holding that Booker is "not applicable to cases that were not on direct appeal when they were decided"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Penniegraft
Case details for

Gerrish v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:LISA ANNE GERRISH, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent…

Court:United States District Court, D. Maine

Date published: Jan 25, 2005

Citations

353 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D. Me. 2005)

Citing Cases

Williams v. U.S.

Thus, Booker does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336,…

Violette v. U.S.

Schriro v. Summerlin, 124 S. Ct. 2519, 2526 (2004). It is also consistent with the other courts in this…