United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: § 2255 MOTIONS
Marvin J. Garbis United States District Judge
The Court has before it Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody [ECF No. 268], Petitioner's Supplemental Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence By a Person In Federal Custody [ECF No. 285] and the materials submitted relating thereto.
On February 10, 2012, Defendant John Franklin ("Franklin") was convicted by a jury on all six counts of the Indictment charging him in regard to two carjackings perpetrated on August 14, 2010. The charges are:
1. Conspiracy to commit carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 371)
2. Carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119(1)).
3. Firearm possession and brandishing in furtherance of a crime of violence. (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
4. Carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119(1)).
5. Firearm possession and brandishing in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)).
6. Firearm possession by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
Superseding Indictment [ECF No. 115].
On April 13, 2013, Franklin was sentenced to a total of 414 months of incarceration, consisting of:
Counts 1, 2, 4 and 6 - 30 months each, concurrent
Count 3 - 84 months consecutive
Count 5 - 300 months consecutive
Judgment [ECF No. 173].
On November 6, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. United States v. Franklin, 545 F.App'x 243 (4th Cir. 2013).
By the instant Motion, timely filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner seeks to have his conviction and sentence vacated.
II. ORIGINAL MOTION
A. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner contends he is entitled to relief because:
1. On arraignment, he was not correctly advised as to mandatory minimum sentences.
2. He was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
3. He was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel.
4. He can rely on the decision in Rosemond v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1240 (2014).
5. The post-trial conviction of a police officer witness constitutes new evidence.
Mot. 2-4, ECF No. 268.
These assertions shall be addressed in turn.
B. Discussion of Asserted Grounds
1. The Magistrate Judge's Arraignment Error
Petitioner was arraigned before a visiting Magistrate Judge. Prior to advising Petitioner of the potential sentences he faced, the Magistrate Judge stated;
I am going to go through the charges and explain them to you in a summary fashion and also the maximum penalties. And [Prosecutor] I would ask you that if I make any errors, please bring them to my attention so - I know ...