Jackson v. United States, No. 19-1131 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct petitioner's sentence. The court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct adequate pretrial investigations. In this case, petitioner failed to identify any specific witnesses or evidence that counsel failed to uncover. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show that counsel's representation prejudiced his case. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing as to petitioner's claim that his new counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses, for convincing petitioner not to testify, for failing to object to or appeal the district court's answer to a jury question, and for failing to object to the district court's designation of petitioner as a career offender.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's opinion in Jackson's direct appeal, see U.S. v. Jackson, 856 F.3d 1187 (8th Cir. 2017); claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in pre-trial investigation, failing to call certain witnesses, advising Jackson not to testify, failing to challenge the district court's answer to a hung jury and failing to challenge the determination that Jackson was a career offender rejected.
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.