The following excerpt is from U.S.A. v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199 (2nd Cir. 2000):
3. A prisoner who pleaded guilty to multiple Section 924(c)(1) counts prior to the present decision could bring a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition based upon the arguable lack of temporal proximity of the predicate crimes. If one of the Section 924(c)(1) offenses were no longer a crime under the present decision, the plea would not have been knowing and voluntary. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 164 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (stating that when definition of element of crime changes, prior guilty pleas based upon old definition "may be challenged as not having been knowing and voluntary" (citing Salas v. United States, 139 F.3d 322, 324 (2d Cir. 1998))).
3. A prisoner who pleaded guilty to multiple Section 924(c)(1) counts prior to the present decision could bring a 28 U.S.C. 2255 petition based upon the arguable lack of temporal proximity of the predicate crimes. If one of the Section 924(c)(1) offenses were no longer a crime under the present decision, the plea would not have been knowing and voluntary. See, e.g., United States v. Simmons, 164 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (stating that when definition of element of crime changes, prior guilty pleas based upon old definition "may be challenged as not having been knowing and voluntary" (citing Salas v. United States, 139 F.3d 322, 324 (2d Cir. 1998))).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.