William Erickson v. USA

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant William J. Erickson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11444
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-cv-00008-RV-GRJ; 1:08-cr-00010-GRJ-2

WILLIAM J. ERICKSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 12, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 2 of 7

William Erickson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2009 Erickson was
convicted of (1) conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to
manufacture and distribute more than 100 marijuana plants, (2) manufacturing and
possessing with intent to distribute more than 100 marijuana plants, and
(3) attempting to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding. Erickson
contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. He bases that contention on
counsel’s decision to concede during his closing arguments that Erickson was
guilty of part of the charged conspiracy. Erickson argues that counsel made that
concession without consulting with him first. He asserts that the district court
should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance claim.
I.
In April 2008 the Drug Enforcement Agency learned about a possible indoor
marijuana grow operation on some land owned by John Sager. Agents obtained a
search warrant for the property and later found 917 marijuana plants. The agents
then searched for other property owned by Sager and found an eighty acre piece of
land that Sager co-owned with Erickson. The agents obtained a warrant to search
the buildings on that property and found hanging lights, dehumidifiers, drying
racks, insulation, soil, and pruning shears. The larger building on the property
looked like someone had recently swept its floor, but 134 circles of moisture and
2

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 3 of 7

dirt were still visible on the floor, indicating that planting pots had recently been
sitting there. The agents followed vehicle tire tracks on the property to an adjacent
property where Erickson and his wife lived. The agents secured a search warrant
for that property and found marijuana residue in a truck bed, 133 pots containing
soil and marijuana plant roots outside of Erickson’s house, and they found
marijuana grow books, a money counter, and over $350,000 in cash inside the
house. Agents then followed vehicle and footprint tracks to a third property
Erickson owned, secured a search warrant, found seventy live marijuana plants,
and discovered inside of garbage bags the tops of 133 recently cut marijuana
plants.
While searching the property that Erickson and Sager jointly owned, the
agents found surveillance cameras and video footage. The footage, which at times
was grainy, showed a man wearing the same clothes that Erickson was wearing on
the day of the search. The man left the building on that property and walked
toward Erickson’s home, only to return around ten minutes later in Erickson’s
truck with a camper hitched to it, backing the truck and camper to the building. A
little over ten minutes after arriving, the man in the video headed back toward the
home driving the truck and camper. About a half hour later, he again drove up and
backed the truck up to the building. And a half hour after that, he drove the truck

3

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 4 of 7

off of the property only to return on foot, carrying a broom, around twenty minutes
after leaving. He later left the building carrying two garbage bags.
Erickson and Sager were charged with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute,
and possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute over 1,000 marijuana
plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), and with
manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute more than 1,000 marijuana
plants in violation of §§ 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). Erickson was also charged
with attempting to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding under 18
U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). At trial Erickson did not call any defense witnesses and he
did not testify, though he did file a stipulation showing that he operated a cypress
tree nursery.
During closing arguments, Erickson’s counsel focused on pointing to
evidence designed to discredit the government’s witnesses as well as noting the
lack of evidence connecting Erickson to the 917 marijuana plants the agents found
on Sager’s property. In his closing argument, Erickson’s counsel conceded the
strength of the evidence connecting Erickson to the seventy live marijuana plants
and the 133 cut marijuana plant tops found on Erickson’s property:
I suggest to you that the evidence is Mr. Erickson is connected to the
203 plants that were found [on Erickson’s third property] and that’s it
because the rooted bottoms are on this property. The [property where
he lived] has the rest of the plant material. We are stuck. The
evidence is clear on that. That’s his conspiracy. That’s the one he
4

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 5 of 7

joined in. There is [no other conspiracy] unless you paint with a
broad brush, unless you make these gigantic assumptions . . . .
Erickson’s counsel never consulted with him about conceding his guilt as to the
203 marijuana plants. The jury returned a guilty verdict, finding Erickson guilty
but only as to conspiring to manufacture and manufacturing between 100 and 999
marijuana plants, as opposed to the 1,000 or more marijuana plants he had been
charged with both conspiring to manufacture and manufacturing. The jury also
found him guilty of attempting to obstruct, influence, and impede an official
proceeding. Erickson appealed and we affirmed those convictions. See United
States v. Cha, 431 F. App’x 790 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).
Erickson later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on twelve claims for
relief. The magistrate judge recommended denying of all of his claims, and the
district court adopted that recommendation over Erickson’s objections. We
granted a certificate of appealability on Erickson’s ninth claim: “Whether the
district court erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Erickson’s claim
that counsel was ineffective for admitting Erickson’s guilt without consulting
Erickson about the decision.”
II.
A district court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255
motion if “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that
the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). We review for abuse of
5

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 6 of 7

discretion the district court’s denial of a § 2255 evidentiary hearing. See Aron v.
United States, 291 F.3d 708, 714 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Erickson must show both that
his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance
prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). But “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness
claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be
followed.” Id. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. And to meet the prejudice prong, “[t]he
defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.
at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. More specifically, “a verdict or conclusion only weakly
supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one
with overwhelming record support.” Id. at 696, 104 S. Ct. at 2069.
Even if Erickson’s counsel’s concession of guilt rose to the level of deficient
performance, Erickson was not prejudiced because the evidence against him as to
the 203 marijuana plants was overwhelming. The agents found that 134 plant pots
had recently been removed from the property that Erickson and Sager jointly
owned, and video footage from earlier that day showed someone who looked like
Erickson driving back and forth from that property and his residence, at one point
carrying garbage bags away from that property. At Erickson’s residence the agents
6

Case: 15-11444

Date Filed: 01/12/2017

Page: 7 of 7

found a truck bed containing marijuana residue, 133 plant pots containing
marijuana roots and over $350,000 in cash. And, at the third property Erickson
owned, the agents found seventy live marijuana plants along with the tops of 133
other freshly cut plants inside of garbage bags.
In light of this overwhelming evidence connecting Erickson to the 203
plants, he cannot show that any error his counsel made by conceding his guilt as to
those plants prejudiced him. As a result, the record conclusively shows that
Erickson is not entitled to relief and the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying him an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.

7