Motion to Vacate Sentence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Stephen Susinka v. United States of America

Case No.: 17-1110

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Motion to Vacate Sentence

Stephen Susinka has filed his third application for permission to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his 20‐year sentence for participat‐ ing in a RICO conspiracy. He wants to challenge his sentence on the authority of Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), which held that Florida’s sentencing procedure for capital cases, whereby the jury delivers an advisory verdict but the judge decides whether to impose a death sentence, violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Id. at 620– 21. Of course the present case is not a capital case; and any‐ way Hurst was decided in January 2016—months before Susinka filed either of his previous applications, and 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) permits a successive motion to vacate a sentence on the basis of a new rule of constitutional law only if the new rule was previously unavailable to the movant, which it was not in this case

Motion Denied

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.