Judge gives Fogle another avenue to challenge sentence

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

A federal judge is giving former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle another chance to seek relief from his 15-year prison sentence after striking down the most recent of his objections to his sentence on Wednesday.

After Southern District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt rejected Fogle’s challenge to his sentence on the grounds that he is a sovereign citizen not under the jurisdiction of the court, the disgraced spokesman –  who was convicted in 2015 on child pornography charges – filed a Rule 52(b) objection to Pratt’s November decision. In his objection, Fogle continued to deny the court’s jurisdiction over him and requested that a final judgment be entered on his motion to correct clear error so that he could appeal.

Pratt denied that request on Wednesday, holding that under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), Fogle could file an appeal within 14 days of the entry of the order being appealed. However, the judge also gave Fogle until Jan. 12 to notify the court as to whether he would like his motion to be treated as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2255. Under that section, a court can grant relief from a federal conviction or sentence “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 by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.”

If Fogle chooses to proceed under section 2255, Pratt required him to supplement his motion with a complete statement of the claims and grounds on which he challenges his conviction and/or sentence on. Or, he could notify the court that his original filing constitutes all of the claims he could or does assert in his challenge.

If Fogle fails to inform the court of his intent to proceed under section 2255 by Jan. 12, then his motion will be withdrawn as it relates to possible relief under that section.

The case is United States of America v. Jared S. Fogle, 1:15-cr-00159.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}