Daly v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, where the government conceded that the defendant was no longer subject to enhanced penalties following Johnson v. United States. The court granted the motion, vacated the sentence, and set a resentencing hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendant's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255“Accordingly, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s Motion Under Section 28 U.S.C. § 2255” | agree with court The government conceded the legal premise that the defendant was no longer subject to the enhanced penalties under which he was sentenced, citing Johnson v. United States. In the context of a § 2255 motion, when the government concedes that a sentence is legally invalid due to a change in the law (such as the invalidation of the residual clause in Johnson), the court is generally required to vacate the sentence. The decision follows from the concession and the cited authority. |
Vacating Defendant's Sentence“and VACATES Defendant’s sentence.” | agree with court Vacating the sentence is the standard procedural remedy when a § 2255 motion is granted based on a legal error in the sentencing guidelines or statutory maximums. Since the enhanced penalties were no longer applicable, the original sentence was legally unsound and had to be vacated to allow for resentencing. |
Setting Resentencing Hearing“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Resentencing Hearing shall be held before this Court on Friday, March 20, 2020 at 9:00 am.” | agree with court Setting a specific date for resentencing is within the court's discretion and is a necessary administrative step to correct the invalid sentence. The government agreed that the defendant should be resentenced, making this a logical and required next step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural disposition based on a concession by the government. It correctly identifies the controlling precedent (Johnson) and the resulting legal consequence (vacatur and resentencing). It does not need to engage in complex legal analysis because the parties agreed on the outcome. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of order it is.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case Nos.: 90CR0701-JLS 16CV1618-JLS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER: 1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 14 JAMES SCOTT DALY, UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255; 2) VACATING SENTENCE; and 15 Defendant. 3) SETTING RESENTENCING HEARING 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 19 Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 132). Plaintiff has filed a response 20 conceding that after Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), Defendant is no 21 longer subject to the enhanced penalties under which he was originally sentenced in 22 1996. Although Plaintiff contends that the question of whether Defendant receives a 23 lower sentence is academic at this point, it agrees that as a technical matter, Defendant 24 should be resentenced. 25 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s Motion Under Section 28 26 U.S.C. § 2255 and VACATES Defendant’s sentence. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 27 / / / 28 1 ||a Resentencing Hearing shall be held before this Court on Friday, March 20, 2020 at 2 ||9:00 am. The Clerk’s Office shall close case number 16CV1618-JLS and enter 3 || judgment accordingly. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: January 28, 2020 . tt f Le 6 on. Janis L. Sammartino 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28