Davidson v. U.S.

Trial Counsel Was Not Ineffective; Right to Appointed Counsel Is Lacking

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

DECISION & ORDER On or about May 2, 2022, Rashawn Davidson (“Davidson” or “Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (“Petition”) challenging his convictions following a jury trial of “conspire[acy] to distribute and possess with intent to distribute…cocaine base” in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A); and “possess[ion] with intent to distribute” crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(B). (Presentence Report, dated Nov. 17, 2017 (“PSR”), 2.) Davidson contends that both his defense counsel, namely, CJA counsel Richard B. Lind (“Lind”), and privately retained counsel John L. Russo (“Russo”) were “ineffective.” (Pet. at 5, 15, 23, 27.) Their “deficient performance[s] prejudiced Petitioner by exposing him to a more onerous sentence.” (Pet. at 5.) Davidson requests “an evidentiary hearing” in connection with the Petition. (Pet. at 11.) On or about June 8, 2022, Davidson filed a motion asking the Court to appoint new counsel “[t]o better litigate” his claims and “to correct any deficiencies in Petitioner’s Pleadings.” (Application for Pro Bono Counsel, dated June 8, 2022, at 1.) On March 9, 2023, Russo submitted a strong rebuttal to Davidson’s claim that Russo was ineffective. (See Russo Ltr., dated March 9, 2023.) Lind, who appears to have retired, has not responded to Davidson’s claim, although the Government effectively disputes Davidson’s claim that Lind was ineffective. (See Order, dated Feb. 23, 2023; see also Hogan v. Ercole, No. 05-CV-5860, 2011 WL 3882822, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2011).) For the reasons stated herein, Davidson’s Petition and his Application for Pro Bono Counsel are respectfully denied.¹ I. Background From 2011 through 2015, Davidson was a member of a drug-trafficking gang that “sold crack cocaine and marihuana, among other illegal narcotics” in the Bronx, New York. (PSR 9.) Davidson was a “wholesale supplier of crack cocaine” and was “responsible for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute at least 840 grams.” (PSR

Davidson v. U.S.

Trial Counsel Was Not Ineffective; Right to Appointed Counsel Is Lacking

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal