TAYLOR v. USA
| RUSSELL CHARLES TAYLOR |
| USA |
| 1:2016cv03515 |
| December 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Matthew P. Brookman |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Prisoner: Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
107
ORDER - GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT. Taylor presents two arguments in his § 2255 Motion for why his conviction and sentence are unlawful. Both arguments are rooted in his claim that his p lea is invalid because he entered it without the benefit of effective assistance by his trial counsel. The Court has previously determined that Taylor's § 2255 Motion is DENIED as to trial attorney's failure to file a motion to supp ress evidence obtained in two searches of his residence. However, the § 2255 Motion must be GRANTED as to his second claim. The extensive fact-finding process regarding the second claim has revealed a simple case. The Government charged Taylo r with three counts of sexual exploitation of a child based on videos that did not fall within the exploitation statute. Lacking experience and preparation in federal court criminal proceedings, Taylor's attorney advised him to plead guilty t o all of the charges pending against him. Taylor accepted that advice, without ever learning that the evidence was deficient. Because Taylor pled guilty without effective assistance from counsel, his motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is G RANTED. The parties agree that the proper relief is vacatur of Taylor's guilty plea and sentence. Therefore, Taylor's guilty plea and sentence in Case No. 1:15-cr- 00165-TWP-DKL-1 are VACATED. The Clerk is directed to reopen Case No. 1:15 -cr- 00165-TWP-DKL-1. Within seven days counsel for Taylor shall file a notice indicating whether they will remain as trial counsel or whether indigent counsel is appropriate. Once counsel is determined, an initial hearing/pretrial conference befor e the Magistrate Judge will be scheduled in the criminal case. The Clerk is directed to docket a copy of this Entry in the criminal action, Case No. 1:15-cr-00165-TWP-DKL-1. The Clerk is further directed to update the docket in the criminal entry to reflect that the § 2255 Motion has been resolved. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/28/2020.(NAD)
|
|
Filing
30
ENTRY - DENYING 20 MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. For the reasons set forth in Part III (A) of this Entry, Taylor's Motion for Default Jud gment, Dkt. 20 , is DENIED. For the reasons set forth in Part III (C) of this Entry, Taylor's § 2255 Motion is DENIED insofar as it asserts that his trial attorney's failure to challenge the admissibility of the evidence against him deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. No evidentiary hearing is warranted on this issue. For the reasons set forth in Part III (D) of this Entry, the Government shall have through December 19, 2018, to file for in camera review the depictions identified as Videos 9A, 10A, 11A with the Court, and provide Taylor's attorney an opportunity for an attorney-only review the videos. The Government must simultaneously file a statement identifying ( a) what segments of the videos (identified by specific time spans) feature sexually explicit conduct as defined above, (b) describing the conduct depicted in those segments, and (c) explaining why the Court should deem that conduct sexually explic it. The Court repeats that the Government is not permitted to argue the definitions of "sexually explicit conduct" or "lascivious exhibition" as discussed in this Entry. Taylor shall have fifteen (15) days from his attorney 9;s review of the videos to file a responsive statement explaining why the conduct depicted should not be deemed sexually explicit. The Court does not anticipate granting any extension of time. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/20/2018. (NAD)
|
|
Filing
17
ENTRY DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER - Mr. Taylor's motion to reconsider, dkt. 16 , is denied. The United States shall continue to have through June 1, 2018, to supplement its response as permitted by the Court's April 2 order. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/25/2018. (BRR)
|
|
Filing
15
ENTRY ADDRESSING WAIVER OF COLLATERAL REVIEW, GRANTING LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT ANSWER, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Petitioner Russell Charles Taylor has asserted two arguments why his sentence should be vacated, set aside, or corrected pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, both of which concern the effectiveness of the counsel he received before pleading guilty. The United States' Response, dkt. 11 , to Mr. Taylor's motion does not address the question of whether ineffective assistance by trial counsel entitles Mr. Taylor to relief under Section 2255. The Court grants the United States through June 1, 2018, in which to supplement its answer to Mr. Taylor § 2255 motion. Any supplement must respond to Mr. Taylor� 39;s substantive arguments that his guilty plea resulted from ineffective assistance based on his trial counsel's failure to challenge the admissibility of critical evidence and to investigate all the charges against Mr. Taylor and inform him of possible defenses. Mr. Taylor shall have 30 days after service of the government's supplement in which to reply. (See Entry.)Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/2/2018.(NAD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: TAYLOR v. USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: RUSSELL CHARLES TAYLOR | |
| Represented By: | Jeremy Brian Gordon |
| Represented By: | Zachary Lee Newland |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: USA | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
