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.

Taylor v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

December 29, 2017

MISTY CAROLE TAYLOR, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN MCBRYDE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the motion of Misty Carole Taylor ("movant") under 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. After having considered such motion, its supporting memorandum, the government's response, [1] and pertinent parts of the record in Case No. 4:15-CR-239-A, styled "United States of America v. Lorenzo Demetric Williams, et al., " the court has concluded that the motion should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

         I.

         Background

         Information contained in the record of the underlying criminal case discloses the following:

         On November 12, 2015, movant was named along with others in a one-count first superseding indictment charging her with conspiracy to make, possess, and utter forged and counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. CR Doc.[2] 45. On December 10, 2015, movant pleaded guilty. CR Doc. 89. On March 25, 2016, movant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 months, to run consecutively to her undischarged state sentence on an unrelated offense. CR Doc. 167. Movant did not appeal.

         II.

         Ground of the Motion

         Movant urges one ground in support of her motion. She says that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, saying:

My lawyer persuaded me that I made the correct decision and I was also given incorrect information pertaining to my sentencing. 1) was told I did not play minor role and I could not get it. 2) was told I could not get my state time run concurrent with federal time.

         Doc.[3] 1.

         III.

         Standard of Review

         After conviction and exhaustion, or waiver, of any right to appeal, courts are entitled to presume that a defendant stands fairly and finally convicted. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164-165 (1982}; United States V. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 231-32 (5th Cir, 1991). A defendant can challenge his conviction or sentence after it is presumed final on issues of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude only, and may not raise an issue 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.