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.

Endre v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 7, 2018

TIMOTHY ANDREW ENDRE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES, Respondent.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SECTION 2255 RELIEF, DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE

         For the reasons explained in this Order, petitioner Timothy Andrew Endre's motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

         I. The Section 2255 Motion

         A motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the presumptive means by which a federal prisoner brings a collateral challenge to his conviction or sentence. See Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974). A court may grant relief from a federal conviction or sentence pursuant to Section 2255 “upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The scope of relief available under Section 2255 is narrow, limited to “an error of law that is jurisdictional, constitutional, or constitutes a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Borre v. United States, 940 F.2d 215, 217 (7th Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted).

         With this framework in mind, the Court turns to Mr. Endre's motion.

         II. Factual Background

         On June 24, 2015, Timothy Endre pleaded guilty in Southern District of Indiana case number 1:14-cr-00108-SEB-MJD, to one count of coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). An amended plea agreement had been filed the same day, amending a plea agreement filed on June 13, 2015. The amended plea agreement called for a sentence of 212 months' imprisonment and, instead of a lifetime of supervised release, Mr. Endre could ask the Court for a ten-year period of supervised release instead. The original plea agreement and the amended version contained an appeal waiver provision. Before the plea hearing held June 24, 2015, the parties filed a stipulated factual basis. Mr. Endre signed the stipulation.

         At the plea hearing Mr. Endre's guilty plea was accepted. The Court considered the parties' arguments on sentencing and imposed 212 months' imprisonment to be followed by ten years of supervised release. The judgment memorializing the sentence was filed June 29, 2015. Less than one year later, on February 22, 2016, Mr. Endre filed his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

         Mr. Endre's motion sets out twenty-three grounds for relief:

(1) his plea of guilty was not knowingly and voluntarily made;
(2) his defense counsel was ineffective for not correcting incorrect information in the pre-sentence report;
(3) his defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the prosecutor's misleading statements made at sentencing;
(4) his defense counsel was ineffective for not advocating for him at sentencing concerning the incorrect information in the pre-sentence report;
(5) his defense counsel was ineffective for not providing the court with justification to exercise discretion and reduce his sentence;
(6) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to argue several circumstances that would have resulted in a downward departure of the sentence;
(7) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to argue circumstances that would have led to the removal of enhancement points or conviction on a lesser charge;
(8) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to argue “30 or 40” issues that Mr. Endre brought to his attention about the pre-sentence investigation;
(9) his defense counsel was ineffective for stipulating to a prior conviction when no such conviction existed;
(10) a prior conviction from Ohio was construed as a sex offense when it was not a sex offense and his defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing this point;
(11) his defense counsel was ineffective failing to inform the Court that Mr. Endre was not taking his mental health medications and had offered to assist the government in finding persons who were harming children;
(12) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence;
(13) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecution's use of a prior conviction that was not a sex-related offense;
(14) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to correct false and misleading information about the prior conviction, which was not a sex-related offense, and an allegation in that prior conviction that was fabricated by the probation department;
(15) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the circumstances of the prior conviction;
(16) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to follow Mr. Endre's instructions to object to the use of the prior conviction, the imposition of restitution, the basis for federal jurisdiction, and to provide him with copies of all of the prosecution's evidence;
(17) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain scientific evidence and DNA reports, which would have ...

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.