Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barnes v. United States

September 22, 2008


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy Mcdade United States District Judge


Petitioner, Braunwin C. Barnes, is before the Court on an Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, filed on June 12, 2006 [Doc. 4]. On September 11, 2006, Respondent filed a Response in opposition [Doc. 7] to Petitioner's Amended Motion to Vacate. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's Amended Motion to Vacate is DENIED, and this case is TERMINATED.


Petitioner was convicted of Armed Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2113(a) and (d) after a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois on January 24, 2005. The Government's case against Petitioner was based on circumstantial evidence showing that Petitioner aided and abetted the man who physically carried out the robbery and, specifically, that Petitioner was the driver of a getaway car used in the crime. Evidence key to Petitioner's conviction was obtained as the result of a search of Petitioner's residence by Peoria police on March 7, 2004. That search took place pursuant to a state search warrant. (3/9/2004 Affidavit of FBI Agent Greg Catey, p. 2, Record on Appeal, Case No. CA7-05-2406) On May 16, 2005, the Court sentenced Petitioner to eighty-seven months imprisonment and four years of supervised release. Petitioner appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which dismissed the appeal. On May 12, 2006, Petitioner moved this Court, under Section 2255, to vacate her sentence. [Doc. 1] With leave of court, Petitioner filed an Amended Motion to Vacate on June 12, 2006. [Doc. 4] On September 11, 2006, Respondent moved to dismiss [Doc. 7] that motion, and Petitioner filed a Reply on November 20, 2006 [Doc. 11].


Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides that a sentence may be vacated, set aside, or corrected: upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack . . . .

Relief under Section 2255 is "an extraordinary remedy to one who already has had an opportunity for full process." Kafo v. United States, 467 F.3d 1063, 1068 (7th Cir. 2006). A hearing is not required if the records "conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Almonacid v. United States, 476 F.3d 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2007).

Petitioner's Section 2255 motion alleges four instances of constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that her trial counsel was ineffective because counsel: (1) failed to disclose that a firearm discovered in her home by police was licensed and registered to Petitioner and that the firearm was not found at the scene of the crime; (2) failed to present a meaningful adversarial challenge to the Government's case; (3) failed to suppress evidence of a "white parka" introduced by the Government; (4) failed to present or interview witnesses on Petitioner's behalf. In addition, Petitioner's Reply is littered with objections to the district court's personal and subject matter jurisdiction in the underlying criminal trial.

The governing standard with respect to ineffective assistance of counsel claims was announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1994). Under Strickland, in order to prevail on her claims, Petitioner must establish that (1) her counsel's representation fell below the threshold of objective reasonableness and that (2) but for her counsel's deficiency, there is a reasonable probability that Petitioner's trial would have turned out differently. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 694. This Court must apply the strong presumption that the performance of Petitioner's trial counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.

1. Counsel's Failure to Disclose that the Firearm Discovered at Petitioner's Home was Licensed and Registered to Petitioner

Even assuming, arguendo, that counsel's failure to disclose to the finder of fact, during Petitioner's trial, that the gun Petitioner references was hers, Petitioner has not demonstrated to this Court why counsel's omission would have changed the outcome of her trial. In its Response, the Government asserts that the gun found in Petitioner's home was used to establish at trial only that Petitioner's male associate in the robbery may have had access to guns at Petitioner's home. Petitioner does not dispute this assertion. Moreover, Petitioner does not even contend, much less establish with detail, that the referenced gun was crucial to the Government's case. For example, Petitioner does not assert that the Government purported this gun to be the weapon used in the robbery. Petitioner had an opportunity to address in her Reply the Respondent's argument regarding the gun's relative insignificance, but failed to do so. As a result, Petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice to her defense resulting from her counsel's failure to disclose to the district court judge that Petitioner owned the referenced gun. Petitioner's claim is, therefore, without merit.

2. Counsel's Failure to Present a Meaningful Adversarial Challenge to the Government's Case

A successful ineffective assistance of counsel claims requires much more than a mere recitation of the Strickland standard. With respect to her "failure to present a meaningful adversarial challenge" claim, Petitioner has merely alleged, in conclusory fashion, that her trial counsel was not vigilant enough in defending her and that she was prejudiced as a result. Petitioner has failed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.