Edlin v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER Denying Petition to Vacate under 28 USC 2255. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/10/2013.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 12 Plaintiff, vs. 13 14 15 16 17 DENNY WILLIAM EDLIN, Defendant. Criminal Case No. 05CR836-MMA Related Civil Case No. 13cv1480-MMA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR OTHERWISE CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 28] On June 19, 2006, pursuant to the terms of a written plea agreement 18 containing a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, Defendant 19 Denny William Edlin pleaded guilty to Counts 9-15 of a nineteen count Indictment 20 for receiving child pornography in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code, 21 section 2252(a)(2). See Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 13. The Court sentenced 22 Defendant on November 6, 2006, to a total term of 137 months imprisonment, to run 23 consecutive to a state court sentence. See Judgment, Doc. No. 24. The Court also 24 sentenced Defendant to a term of supervised release for 3 years on Count 9, and 2 25 years on Counts 10-15 as to each count, to run consecutive for a total of 15 years. 26 Id. Defendant now moves the Court to vacate, set aside, or otherwise correct his 27 sentence pursuant to Title 28, section 2255, arguing that the Court erred by imposing 28 consecutive terms of supervised release. Defendant requests re-sentencing and -1- 05CR836/13CV1480 1 further moves for a reduced sentence based on his post-conviction rehabilitation. 2 See Motion, Doc. No. 28. The government filed a response to Defendant’s motion. 3 See Response, Doc. No. 29. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 4 motion. 5 DISCUSSION 6 1. 2255 Statute of Limitations 7 Defendant seeks to correct and reduce his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 8 2255, which provides: 9 10 11 12 A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released 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 authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 13 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, a one-year period of limitations applies to 2255 14 motions. Id. § 2255(f). As applicable here, the one-year limitations period runs 15 from the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final. Id. The 16 government correctly asserts, and Defendant does not dispute, that the instant 2255 17 motion was filed long after his conviction became final and the one-year statute of 18 limitations expired. Nor does Defendant contend that he is entitled to equitable 19 tolling. His motion is therefore time-barred.1 20 2. Plea Agreement Waiver 21 Even if Defendant’s motion was timely, he waived the right to collaterally 22 attack his conviction and sentence. The Ninth Circuit approves of such waivers on 23 public policy grounds, reasoning that finality is “perhaps the most important benefit 24 25 1 The Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the allegations are “palpably incredible” or “patently frivolous,” or if the issues can be conclusively decided on the 26 basis of the evidence in the record. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977); see also United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a 27 “district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on a Section 2255 claim where the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief”). 28 Here, because Defendant’s motion is untimely, he is “not entitled to relief” and an evidentiary hearing is neither warranted nor required. -2- 05CR836/13CV1480 1 of plea bargaining.” United States v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir. 2 1990). The pertinent portion of the plea agreement provides: 3 In exchange for the Government’s concessions in this plea agreement, defendant waives, to the full extent of the law, any right to appeal or to collaterally attack the conviction and sentence, including any restitution order, unless the court imposes a custodial sentence greater than the high end of the guideline range (or statutory mandatory minimum term, if applicable) recommended by the Government pursuant to this plea agreement at the time of sentencing. If the custodial sentence is greater than the high end of that range, defendant may appeal, but the Government will be free to support on appeal the sentence actually imposed. If defendant believes the Government’s recommendation is not in accord with this plea agreement, defendant will object at the time of sentencing; otherwise the objection will be deemed waived. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 See Plea Agreement, 10. Defendant’s custodial sentence of 137 months complies 11 with these conditions, and he does not challenge the knowing and voluntary nature 12 of the plea agreement or the voluntariness of his waiver.2 13 3. Procedural Default 14 Defendant did not challenge his sentence on direct appeal. Generally, on 15 collateral review, an individual may not assert claims of constitutional error that 16 were not previously raised before the district court or on direct review. United 17 States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1997). To obtain review of issues 18 at this juncture that could have been raised on direct appeal, Defendant must show 19 cause for his procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the error. United 20 States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982); United State v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 21 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1985). 22 Defendant has made no such showing nor could he establish that he suffered 23 actual prejudice as a result of the alleged error. The plea agreement stated that the 24 Guidelines range for supervised release was a maximum of 3 years. See Plea 25 Agreement, 4. As accurately reflected by the corrected Pre-Sentence Report, 26 submitted to the parties and the Court prior to sentencing, the applicable statute at 27 28 2 The Court calculated a Total Offense Level of 25, and a Criminal History Category of VI, resulting in a Guideline range of 110-137 months. -3- 05CR836/13CV1480 1 the time of Defendant’s offense provided for a lifetime term of supervised release as 2 the statutory maximum for crimes involving possession of child pornography.3 See 3 United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. Cal. 2008), citing18 U.S.C. § 4 3583(k) (2003). Furthermore, the Guidelines contained a policy statement 5 recommending the statutory maximum term of supervised release for sex offense 6 convictions. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c) (Nov. 2002). And in fact, United States Probation 7 recommended a 15 year term of supervised release as to each count, to run 8 concurrently. Thus, although the imposition of consecutive terms of supervised 9 release violated 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), the Court was authorized by statute to impose a 10 term for each count of life. The total 15 year term imposed in this case was 11 recommended by Probation, amply supported by the record, and was less than the 12 maximum term authorized by statute and recommended by the policy guidelines. 13 Despite the Court’s error in structuring his sentence, Defendant did not suffer any 14 prejudice as a result. 15 4. Amendment of the Judgment 16 The government concedes and the Court agrees that it was error to sentence 17 Defendant to consecutive terms of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 18 3624(e), which provides, in short, that multiple terms of supervised release must run 19 concurrently. The government suggests that the Court should “amend the judgment” 20 21 3 22 Supervised Release 23 (As to each count) 24 Statutory Provisions: A term of supervised release of any term of years or life is authorized. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). 25 26 27 28 The corrected PSR stated: Guideline Provisions: If a sentence of imprisonment of one year or less is imposed, a term of supervised release of at least three years and up to life is optional. USSG §§ 5D1.1(b), 5Dl.2(a)(J) and 5D1.2(b)(2). If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed which exceeds one year, the court is required to impose a term of supervised release of at least three years and up to life. USSG §§ 5D1.1(a), 5D1.2(a)(1) and 5DJ.2(b)(2). -4- 05CR836/13CV1480 1 to correct this error. See Response, 4. However, the government offers no legal 2 basis for amending the judgment in this case, and there is none. 3 This Court may only amend or correct a judgment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 3582(c) or Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35 or 36, none of which are 5 applicable in this case. Section 3582(c) does not apply because there is no motion 6 from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, nor has Defendant’s sentencing range 7 been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. Rule 35(a) provides that “[w]ithin 14 8 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from 9 arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.” Even if the Court were to construe 10 Defendant’s motion as one brought pursuant to Rule 35, the motion was filed 11 beyond the fourteen-day period set out in Rule 35(a) and there is no allegation of 12 arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. Rule 35(b) provides for a reduction of 13 sentence upon motion of the government. Here, there is no motion for reduction of 14 Defendant’s sentence for substantial assistance. Finally, Rule 36 provides that 15 “[a]fter giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct 16 a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in 17 the record arising from oversight or omission.” There is no such error here. 18 19 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to vacate, 20 reduce, or otherwise correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court 21 DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability and DENIES leave to proceed in 22 forma pauperis on appeal because Defendant has not made a substantial showing of 23 the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 24 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: July 10, 2013 27 28 Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge -5- 05CR836/13CV1480

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?