Jamison v. Senkowski

6 Citing cases

  1. Jamison v. Senkowski

    99 Civ. 9424 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. May. 14, 2010)

    In the Order denying the motion for reconsideration, the Court addressed this argument, namely that Jamison "was denied the effective assistance of counsel because [his attorney] failed to advise him of viable defenses . . . that the recovered weapons were toy guns and that the perpetrator in most of the robberies wore a mask." Jamison v. Senkowski, 204 F.Supp.2d 610, 612-613 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). In doing so, the Court found that Jamison's challenge to the validity of his plea on these grounds failed to meet the requirements of Panuccio v. Kelly because Jamison could not show that the defenses he was allegedly unaware of were in fact viable.

  2. Russell v. United States

    20-CR-427 (AMD) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2025)

    Accordingly, counsel's failure to pursue such claims did not fall outside of the ‘wide range of reasonable professional assistance.'” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689)); Jamison v. Senkowski, 204 F.Supp.2d 610, 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Petitioner's arguments are unavailing because he cannot show that even if his attorney did fail to alert him to such defenses, such a failure falls below objective standards of reasonableness. In short, [the petitioner] has not shown that these defenses were in fact viable.”)

  3. Farmer v. United States

    15-cv-6287 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016)   Cited 6 times

    Because Farmer's attorneys correctly determined that the medical defenses were not inconsistent with Farmer's guilt on the charges against him, Farmer has failed to demonstrate that it was outside the range of objectively reasonable conduct for his attorneys to tell him that the Court would not permit the defenses at trial. Cf. Jamison v. Senkowski, 204 F. Supp. 2d 610, 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (petitioner was unable to demonstrate that attorney's failure to inform him of defenses was unreasonable because he could "not show[] that these defenses were in fact viable"). Furthermore, even if the medical defenses were minimally viable, Farmer would be unable to demonstrate that his counsels' decision not to pursue them was anything other than a strategic decision about how to proceed at trial.

  4. Marte v. United States

    11 Civ. 3269 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 19, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    "The likelihood that an affirmative defense will be successful at trial and an assessment of the probable increase or reduction in sentence relative to the plea if the defendant proceeds to trial are clearly relevant to the determination of whether an attorney acted competently in recommending a plea." Panuccio v. Kelly, 927 F.2d 106, 109 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Jamison v. Senkowski, 204 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Buchwald, J.) ("In determining whether an attorney acted competently in recommending a plea, one factor that a court may consider is the likelihood of success a given defense would have had at trial.").

  5. Muyet v. U.S.

    Nos. 01 Civ. 9371 (PKL), 95 Cr. 941 (PKL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2004)   Cited 9 times

    Cf. Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129, 135 (2d Cir. 2000) ("If the district court decides to expand the record . . . instead of conducting a full evidentiary hearing, it should of course reevaluate the need for such an evidentiary hearing after these initial steps have been taken.") (internal citations omitted); Jamison v. Senkowski, 204 F. Supp.2d 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding that after the court had expanded the record and found no violation of the right to effective counsel, an evidentiary hearing was not needed).

  6. Williams v. Comm'r of Corr.

    223 Conn. App. 745 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    In this regard, we note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a case in which a possible defense "had little chance of success" and presented a "high likelihood that the … defense … would have exposed [the petitioner] to significant additional punishment," concluded that "counsel served adequately during the plea negotiations because he had no duty to disclose the … defense under [those] circumstances." Panuccio v. Kelly, 927 F.2d 106, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1991); see also Jamison v. Senkowski, 204 F. Supp. 2d 610, 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (representation does not fall below objective standard of reasonableness when counsel fails to inform petitioner of defense that is not, in fact, viable). Here, there was no duty to inform 762the petitioner of the possible mental disease or defect defense because it was not established as a viable defense in the circumstances of his case.