Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JAMSHID MUHTOROV, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JOHNNY CHOATE, Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Petitioner-Appellant Jamshid Muhtorov appeals from the judgment of dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus application. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Muhtorov is charged with conspiracy and attempt to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization. 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. He has been detained pending trial since 2012. Mr. Muhtorov repeatedly sought pretrial release. The district court granted conditional release in 2017, but this court reversed and ordered that he be detained pending trial. United States v. Muhtorov, No. 17-1220, 2017 WL 3098109 (10th Cir. July 21, 2017).
In his habeas application, Mr. Muhtorov alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is being violated in part due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I R. 4–5. On appeal, Mr. Muhtorov contends that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not demonstrate prejudice in presenting his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim to the district court. Aplt. Br. at 2. He seeks dismissal of the charges, or alternatively an order requiring the district court to set a trial date forthwith. Id. at 5. The district court noted that Mr. Muhtorov's speedy trial claims are being pursued in the criminal case and that the district court's adverse decisions could be appealed.
Though § 2241 may afford a means of challenging pretrial detention, Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007), exhaustion is generally a prerequisite for § 2241 relief. See Ray v. Denham, 652 F. App'x 610, 612 (10th Cir. 2016). Additionally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims generally are raised post-conviction, specifically in a § 2255 motion, and not on direct appeal, let alone pretrial. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–505 (2003). Though the length of delay in this case is troubling, we agree with the district court and affirm its dismissal without prejudice for substantially the same reasons.
AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Muhtorov's motion to proceed IFP on appeal.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-1252
Decided: September 22, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)