Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

United States v. Aron

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

June 8, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
(1) TERRELL DAYVONTE DESHAY ARON, Defendant.

          Jeffrey S. Paulsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.

          Terrell Dayvonte Deshay Aron, pro se.

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

          Michael J. Davis United States District Court

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on six pro se motions by Defendant Terrell Dayvonte Deshay Aron: Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 70], Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Docket No. 71], Motion to Amend Pursuant to Rule 15 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Docket No. 73], Motion for Representation of Counsel Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A [Docket No. 75], Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 16 [Docket No. 76], and Motion to File a Supplemental Motion [Docket No. 79].

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 16, 2015, Defendant Terrell Dayvonte Deshay Aron pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Although the Indictment charged Defendant as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), the Court concluded that the enhanced sentence did not apply, and Defendant was not sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The Court calculated Defendant's total offense level to be 21 based on Defendant's two felony convictions for crimes of violence: Minnesota first degree aggravated robbery and Minnesota simple robbery, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). (PSI ¶¶ 17, 34, 35.)

         The Court calculated Defendant's criminal history to be category V, based on a criminal history score of 11 consisting of: 4 points for first degree aggravated robbery and second degree assault with a dangerous weapon (PSI ¶ 34), 3 points for simple robbery (¶ 35), 2 points for fourth degree assault (¶ 36), and 2 points for theft (¶ 37).

         On November 3, 2015, the Court sentenced Defendant to 87 months in prison, at the high end of the Guideline range. Defendant did not appeal his sentence.

         Defendant has now filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence on the grounds that, under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), his prior offenses do not qualify as crimes of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to his prior simple robbery conviction being classified as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

         Defendant has also filed a Motion to Amend, seeking to add an additional claim to his § 2255 Motion. He asserts that his counsel was also ineffective in failing to seek to suppress a surveillance video of Defendant holding a gun. The Court grants the motion to amend and will consider the claim set forth in that motion. Defendant further requests that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in briefing his § 2255 motion and that the Court grant him discovery.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard for Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

         28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) provides:

A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released 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, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
Relief under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice. A movant may not raise constitutional issues for the first time on collateral review without ...

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.