United States v. Dennis J. Bennett, No. 05-2607 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. District court did not err in denying motion for new trial, as the motion, which was based solely upon ineffective-assistance of counsel claims, could be brought in a Section 2255 proceeding.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2607 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dennis J. Bennett, also known as * Jerry Dennis Andrews, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: September 7, 2006 Filed: September 20, 2006 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Dennis J. Bennett challenges the district court s1 denials of (1) his motion for reconsideration of his motion for a new trial, and (2) his motion for a hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bennett s motion for reconsideration of his new-trial motion because the 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. court correctly determined that Bennett would not have been entitled to relief on his new-trial motion, even if it had been timely filed, as it was based solely upon ineffective-assistance claims which could more appropriately be addressed in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bennett s request for a hearing on his ineffective-assistance claims, because Bennett was not prejudiced by the denial of a hearing. Cf. United States v. Holy Bear, 624 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1980) (appellate court s failure to address incompetency of counsel on direct appeal does not prejudice defendant, who may raise constitutional ineffective-assistance claim in § 2255 motion, and in such proceeding offer evidence to supplement record). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
