District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood has overruled a defendant’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations.
Joseph Franklin Fejeran Drake is seeking a new trial in the armed robbery case which he was convicted for in 2006.
After his appeal failed in 2008, he filed a motion in 2017, seeking a new trial. That motion was dismissed after the federal court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
In 2019, Drake again sought a new trial on the grounds that the prosecutor in the case allegedly knowingly presented false testimony. But the court again denied the motion, indicating that Drake needed to obtain circuit certification and that the motion was filed outside of the one-year statute of limitations.
Drake challenged the court findings that the motion was a second 2255 motion, stating that he was simply filing a complaint regarding prosecutorial misconduct that led to an unfair trial.
“Regardless of how Defendant frames the issue, a motion to vacate a sentence ‘upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States…or is otherwise subject to collateral attack’ must pass through the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255,” explained the Chief Judge.
Chief Judge Tydingco-Gatewood has determined that Drake’s motion fails to meet multiple requirements, such as a failure to file within the statute, he has not submitted any reason why his final date of conviction is not applicable, and he has not had the motion certified by a panel of the Ninth circuit court.
The chief judge further noted that the Ninth Circuit rejected his argument that authorities did not have reasonable suspicion to effectuate the traffic stop that led to his arrest.
The chief judge has barred Drake’s motion and has adopted the report and recommendations of the magistrate judge.
Drake’s request to investigate prosecutorial misconduct was subsequently denied.