Rosinski v. United States, 71-2005.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2005.,71-2005. |
| Parties | John M. ROSINSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
James C. Bonner, Jr., Decatur, Ga., on brief, for petitioner-appellant.
Ralph B. Guy, Jr., U. S. Atty., Michael D. Gladstone, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on brief, for respondent-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Rosinski filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence under an armed robbery conviction on the ground that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the period between sentencing and the expiration of time for filing a notice of appeal. His petition was denied by the District Court. We reverse.
Rosinski was represented in the original criminal case by retained counsel. Following conviction, he was advised by the court of his right to appeal. According to his verified petition, he informed counsel of his desire to appeal. Upon learning that Rosinski's funds had been exhausted, counsel informed him that the court would appoint counsel for him and would forward the necessary papers to him.
Trial counsel did nothing to perfect the appeal, but assured Rosinski that all was proceeding according to the rules, informing him by letter that the court "was going to allow you to file the necessary papers for a timely appeal . . . and that the necessary papers had been mailed to you." Under these circumstances, failure of counsel to perfect an appeal amounts to ineffective assistance. See Woodall v. Neil, 444 F.2d 92 (6th Cir. 1971); Goodwin v. Cardwell, 432 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1970); Benoit v. Wingo, 423 F.2d 880 (6th Cir. 1970). Although these cases involved habeas corpus petitions by state prisoners, we perceive no reason to apply a different rule in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227 (1969).
Accordingly, the District Court is directed to grant petitioner's motion, vacate the sentence imposed, and resentence petitioner on the original conviction in order to start the time for appeal running again. The District Court at the time of resentencing will again instruct Rosinski of his right to appeal in accordance with R. 32(a)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P. If Rosinski so requests, the Clerk of the District Court shall prepare and file a timely notice of appeal on his behalf. C...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Leachman
...to the defendant is a delayed direct appeal. See, e.g., Ludwig v. U.S., 162 F.3d 456, 458-59 (6th Cir.1998); Rosinski v. U.S., 459 F.2d 59, 59-60 (6th Cir.1972) (per curiam). Hence, this matter is timely before this Court as a direct 5. This section refers to violations of § 841(a), which p......
-
Racey v. United States
...order to restart Petitioner's time for appeal. See Johnson v. United States, 146 F. App'x 4, 5-6 (6th Cir. 2005); Rosinski v. United States, 459 F.2d 59, 59-60 (6th Cir. 1972); see also Campbell, 686 F.3d at 360; Mulkey v. United States, No. 2:15-CR-024, 2019 WL 4016485, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. A......
-
Juarico-Cervantes v. United States
... ... sentence and permit a direct appeal. See Johnson v ... United States , 146 Fed.Appx. 4, 5 (6th Cir. 2005); ... Rosinski v. United States , 459 F.2d 59, 59 (6th Cir ... 1972). In this case, however, Petitioner seeks to vacate his ... conviction, and is ... ...
-
US v. Ramos
...to show prejudice from the dismissal of his appeal, because "counsel's ineffectiveness caused the dismissal"); Rosinski v. United States, 459 F.2d 59 (6th Cir.1972) (remanding § 2255 motion to district court for resentencing because retained trial counsel had failed to effect an appeal afte......