Criminal Procedure – Successive appeals

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure – Successive appeals

Where a prisoner waited 8 years to claim his attorney was ineffective for failing to communicate a plea offer, his motion for authorization to file a successive motion for collateral review is denied.

“This may seem like a hard result, perhaps made harder by the fact that Hare has been trying pro se to raise seemingly credible claims of ineffective assistance from counsel.
But there are limits to our ability to accommodate a defendant’s failure to follow the procedures established by Congress with the intent of encouraging finality and limiting most defendants to one round of collateral review, especially when there is no plausible claim of actual innocence. The claims Hare now asserts under Frye have been available to him since before he pled guilty, and he has known about the uncommunicated plea offer for eight years. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Frye and Cooper may have reminded Hare of this issue, but they did not create a new rule of law and do not excuse his prior failure to seek permission to file his prior successive petitions.”

Motion Denied.

12-2680 Hare v. U.S.

On Motion for an Order Authorizing the District Court to Entertain a Second or Successive Motion for Collateral Review, Hamilton, J.

Full Text