Griffin v. United States of America

Filing 50

ORDER granting 48 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically to Respond to Petitioner's Section 2255 motion. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/18/2020. (LSC)

Case 8:18-cv-01380-MSS-SPF Document 50 Filed 08/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID 476

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TROY M. GRIFFIN,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-1380-T-35SPF
Case No. 8:15-cr-453-T-35MAP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner Troy M. Griffin’s “Motion for Court
to Respond to Defendant’s Motion from the Supreme Court Ruling in United States v.
Davis, et al.” (Civ. Doc. 48) Petitioner requests that the Court rule on his pending Motion
to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 (Civ. Doc. 1).
Petitioner asserts that the United States has conceded that, in light of United States v.
Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), he is entitled to relief from his conviction and sentence for
brandishing a firearm during and in relation to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2 (Count Three). Therefore, he
argues there is “no explainable reason” why the Court should not rule on his Section 2255
motion.1
Petitioner undoubtedly is aware that his son and co-defendant, Troy Griffin, Jr.,
was released from prison following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Davis. Troy
Griffin, Jr. was far differently situated than Petitioner. He had an offense level of 19 and

1

Petitioner twice filed similar motions urging the Court to rule on his pending Section 2255 motion.
(Civ. Docs. 37 and 40) The Court disposed of those motions by informing Petitioner that a ruling was
forthcoming once the Court completes its review of the issues presented in the motion. (Civ. Doc. 41)

1

Case 8:18-cv-01380-MSS-SPF Document 50 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID 477

a Criminal History Category of I, and, thus, he was sentenced to 18 months as to Count
One and 84 months as to Count Three to run consecutively to Count One. Once the Court
amended its judgment as to Count Three for Troy Griffin Jr., he was no longer subject to
custody because he had served his full 18-month concurrent sentence on Counts One
and Three.
Troy Griffin , Sr., however, presented to the Court with a Criminal History Category
of VI and an Offense Level of 30. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit a
Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1951(a) (Count One), and Hobbs Act
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1951(a) and 2 (Count Two). Thus, while
Petitioner is correct that the United States concedes that Count Three, his Section 924(c)
conviction and 84-month sentence should be vacated, he is not due to be released
immediately. Davis does not afford Petitioner relief from his convictions and 210-month
sentences for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and Hobbs Act robbery (Counts
One and Two).
In his Section 2255 motion, Petitioner raises eleven grounds for relief primarily
based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Although the United States concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to relief on Count Three, it opposes Petitioner’s motion as it relates
to his convictions and sentence in Counts One and Two. Therefore, the Court must
undertake a thorough analysis of the grounds for relief Petitioner raises in his Section
2255 motion to determine whether they warrant relief on Counts One and Two.
Petitioner is advised that his Section 2255 motion is under consideration. Although
the Court cannot give a date certain for entering an order on the motion, the Court will
endeavor to resolve the motion as expeditiously as possible. When the Court completes

2

Case 8:18-cv-01380-MSS-SPF Document 50 Filed 08/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID 478

its review of the issues presented in the motion, the Court will issue its decision, and a
copy of the Court’s decision will be sent to Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner’s “Motion for
Court to Respond to Defendant’s Motion from the Supreme Court Ruling in United States
v. Davis, et al.” (Civ. Doc. 48), to that extent, is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 18th day of August,
2020.

3