{"id":2038,"date":"2020-03-01T10:30:27","date_gmt":"2020-03-01T16:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2038"},"modified":"2020-03-01T10:30:27","modified_gmt":"2020-03-01T16:30:27","slug":"laughlin-v-united-states-e-d-tenn-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/03\/01\/laughlin-v-united-states-e-d-tenn-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Laughlin v. United States (E.D. Tenn. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Laughlin v. United States, No. 2:17-CV-00085-JRG-CRW (E.D. Tenn. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Petitioner pled guilty to a federal kidnapping offense and was not required to register as a sex offender under neither federal law nor by court order. However, Tennessee authorities subsequently required that she register as a sex offender under state law. Petitioner subsequently brought a \u00a7 2255 petition to vacate her guilty plea on the grounds that it was not knowing and voluntary, and that she had received ineffective assistance of counsel.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> \u2028Federal trial court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the petition. While the Court observed that the Petitioner had not waived her right to bring a petition, the Court found that she lost on the merits: sex offense registration was a collateral consequence, and thus her plea was not rendered involuntary nor did her attorney render ineffective assistance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n