From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Goodrich

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
May 11, 2007
Case No. 3:04-cv-1124-WKW (M.D. Ala. May. 11, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. 3:04-cv-1124-WKW.

May 11, 2007


ORDER


The Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 30) in this case to which timely objections have been made. Goodrich made four objections; however, the court need only address the second objection. Goodrich objects to the Recommendation in that it failed to address his claim that Newman was ineffective for failure to file a motion to sever in order to obtain the testimony of co-defendant Mark Turner regarding Turner's April 4, 2002 statement. This claim is meritless because Goodrich failed to show that his co-defendant would have actually testified at a separate trial. Thus, he has failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to succeed on a Strickland claim.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Upon an independent and de novo review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the objection of the defendant and the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED that

1. The objection (Doc. # 33) is OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is ADOPTED;

3. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Doc. # 1) is DENIED; and

4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Goodrich

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
May 11, 2007
Case No. 3:04-cv-1124-WKW (M.D. Ala. May. 11, 2007)
Case details for

U.S. v. Goodrich

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEVEN WAYNE GOODRICH

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division

Date published: May 11, 2007

Citations

Case No. 3:04-cv-1124-WKW (M.D. Ala. May. 11, 2007)

Citing Cases

Permenter v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.

Stano [v. Butterworth, 51 F.3d [942] at 978 [(1995)] (quoting United States v. Taylor, 800 F.2d 1012, 1015…

Cardenas v. U.S.

Trial and appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise meritless or frivolous claims.…