IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 25, 2009
DANIEL W. STARK, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 23, 2005, Daniel Stark was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, conspiracy to possess and sell stolen motor vehicles, possession of stolen vehicles, conspiracy to engage in monetary transactions in criminally derived property, and engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property. Stark entered a plea of not guilty, and was found guilty after a jury trial. On March 31, 2006, this Court imposed a sentence of 292 months incarceration, three years of supervised release, an assessment of $2,700, and restitution totaling $522,506.17. Stark appealed his sentence, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
U.S. v. Stark, 507 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2007). Stark then filed the present § 2255 motion.
This court has a duty to liberally construe Stark's § 2255 motion. Donald v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996). In his § 2255 motion, Stark raises four grounds for relief that center around a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Ground one alleges that Stark's counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to object to the prosecutorial misconduct that took place when the Government informed the jury that Stark could be found guilty of constructive possession, though charged with actual possession. Ground two claims that counsel was ineffective when counsel again failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct that took place when the Government filed count two, a frivolous count against Stark that should have been dismissed. Ground three states that Stark's counsel was ineffective when counsel was not prepared for trial, failed to file a notice of appeal, and failed to raise substantive issues at trial. And ground four maintains that counsel failed to adequately present evidence at sentencing that would have lead to a lighter sentence for Stark.
In response to the grounds raised, the Court ORDERS the Government to file a response to Petitioner's motion within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. The Government shall, as part of its response, attach all relevant portions of the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.