Hinton v. United States of America (INMATE 3), No. 3:2019cv00286 - Document 15 (M.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/29/2022. (bes, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hinton v. United States of America (INMATE 3) Doc. 15 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION STANLEY JAWAN HINTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19cv286-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, petitioner, a federal inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief. This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that the petition be denied. Also before the court are petitioner’s objections to the recommendation. After record, an independent the objections court should be and de concludes overruled novo review that and of the petitioner’s the magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted, with the exception of a portion of misreading the of recommendation the record. that That is based part of on a the recommendation addresses petitioner’s claim that trial Dockets.Justia.com counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim for appeal, resulting in the application of a “plain error” standard of review on appeal rather than a more favorable de novo review. In addressing that claim, the recommendation concludes that “it was Hinton’s written brief on appeal that failed to preserve the issue, not trial counsel.” sufficiency of evidence Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) at 13 (citing United States v. Hinton, 730 F. App'x 719, 721 (11th Cir. 2018)). somewhat court’s confusing, opinion and after the While the record is review of petitioner’s the appellate brief in the appeal, it is clear that the reason for the appeals court’s application of plain-error review was that trial counsel failed to preserve the arguments raised by appellate counsel, not that appellate counsel failed to preserve trial counsel’s arguments. Nevertheless, as petitioner has not established that the outcome of his appeal would have been 2 any different had trial counsel preserved all issues raised in the appeal, his claim will still be denied. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 29th day of July, 2022. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
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.
