Thomas v. United States, No. 12-1853 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseMovant, convicted of a drug offense, appealed the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. On appeal, movant argued that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing because the files and records of the case did not conclusively establish that he was not entitled to section 2255 relief, and the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court concluded that because the decision whether to move to dismiss was a tactical decision made within counsel's discretion, movant was not entitled to relief. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. Further, the district court did not err in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Prisoner case - Habeas. An evidentiary hearing was not required on Thomas's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as the decision not to move for dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds was a tactical decision within the wide range of defense counsel competence demanded by the Sixth Amendment; no error in denying Thomas's Rule 60(b) motion.
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.