Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 15-304-2 CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-343
09-18-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANTE HILL
MEMORANDUM Baylson, J.
Defendant/Petitioner Dante Hill has filed a Motion to Vacate or Modify his Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that his attorney was ineffective for allowing his speedy trial rights to be violated.
The procedural history of this case, as shown in the Government's response (ECF 141), details a number of motions filed by defense counsel for extension of time for various motions and seeking various forms of relief, including a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.
On September 15, 2016, Defendant plead guilty to a lesser included offense of that charged in the Indictment, and following a presentence report, the Court imposed a sentence that had been agreed to under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), of 84 months imprisonment, plus supervised release. Although not cited by the Government, the record will show that both when Defendant plead guilty, and at the time of sentencing, he advised the Court, under oath, that he was satisfied with his counsel.
Defendant/Petitioner has not substantiated claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Aside from negating such a claim by his sworn answers to the Court's questions at the guilty plea and sentencing, the record shows that his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, or his right to a speedy trial under the 6 Amendment, have not been violated. The Government's response shows that all of the delays and postponements were as a result of the Defendant's motions for extensions and other pretrial relief, and is thus excludable under the Speedy Trial Act. Furthermore, the Defendant does not make any meritorious arguments regarding his claim for violation of his speedy trial rights under the 6 Amendment, as shown by the Government's brief.
For the above reasons, the Court will enter an Order denying the Defendant's Motion. O:\Criminal Cases\15cr304-2 - Hill\15cr304 Memorandum 09182018.docx