Edwards v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on June 2, 2017. Petitioner Derek Edwards' 1 § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DENIED. (RS1, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 02 June, 2017 03:03:39 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
DEREK L. EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-02278-SLD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Derek Edwards’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 3. For the foregoing reasons, Edwards’ petition is
DENIED.
BACKGROUND1
On August 22, 2012, Petitioner Edwards was charged by a grand jury with two counts
including (1) possession with intent to distribute at least 28 grams of crack cocaine under 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(b); and (2) felon in possession of a firearm, under 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1). Indictment, Cr. ECF No. 8. At Edwards’ change-of-plea hearing on September 13,
2013, the Government discussed its offer to recommend a 137-month sentence if Edwards pled
guilty to both the drug and firearm charge, and noted that it would withdraw the offer if Edwards
did not plead to both. United States v. Edwards Order, No. 14-2361, at 1 (7th Cir. Jun. 3, 2015),
Cr. ECF No. 56. Edwards’ defense counsel indicated that he had discussed the offer with
Edwards, but that Edwards wanted to plea open to the drug charge, despite the possibility that he
could be facing between 235 and 293 months of incarceration if he did so. Id. Edwards then
1

Citations to docket entries in Edwards’ § 2255 proceeding will take the form: “ECF No. __.” Citations to docket
entries in Edwards’ underlying criminal matter, United States v. Edwards, No. 2:12-cr-20049-JES-DGB-1, take the
form “Cr. [ECF No. __].”

pled to the drug charge and did not plead to the gun charge, and the Government ultimately
dismissed the latter by oral motion on June 16, 2014. See Jun. 16, 2014 Cr. Docket Entry.
Edwards was sentenced to 235 months of incarceration. Judgment 2, Cr. ECF No. 27. On June
18, 2015, Edwards filed a motion to reduce his sentence with a two-level reduction pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Cr. ECF No. 55, which was granted, resulting in a reduced sentence of
188 months. Order Regarding Mot. Sentence Reduction, Cr. ECF No. 58. Edwards filed the
present § 2255 petition on September 6, 2016. Mot. Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence,
ECF No. 1.
In Edwards’ § 2255 petition, he lists several grounds for his ineffective assistance of
counsel claim, including, significantly, his attorney’s (1) failure to suppress video evidence of
statements he made to police (2) failure to present evidence, and (3) failure to challenge the
district court’s judgment because it was not based on sufficiently reliable evidence. Pro Se
Mem. Supp. Mot. Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 2–3, ECF No. 1-1. On his § 2255
petition, Edwards lists “denial of effective assistance of counsel” as one of the grounds he raised
previously on direct appeal. Mot. Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 3. Additionally, the
Seventh Circuit order affirming his sentence thoroughly addressed the ineffective assistance
claim. United States v. Edwards Order, No. 14-2361, at 5–6 (7th Cir. Jun. 3, 2015).
In the instant matter, the Government filed a response to Edwards’ § 2255 petition,
arguing that because Edwards raised his ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, he is
barred from doing so in a habeas proceeding. Gov’t Resp. 10–12, ECF No. 6. Though the Court
gave him leave to do so, see Apr. 6, 2017 Text Order, Edwards did not file a reply.
DISCUSSION
The Seventh Circuit strongly cautions criminal defendants against raising ineffective
assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, largely because the trial court record almost

invariably proves inadequate to address important factual information regarding the strategy
choices made by counsel and, importantly, the underlying motivation behind those choices.
United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543, 557–58 (7th Cir. 2005) (collecting cases) (holding that
“only the rarest and most patently egregious of ineffective assistance of counsel claims are
appropriately brought on direct appeal.”)
For that reason, the Seventh Circuit holds that a defendant who has already raised an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal may not do so in a collateral motion.
United States v. Flores, 739 F.3d 337, 341–42 (7th Cir. 2014) (“A litigant gets to argue
ineffective assistance, and for that matter any other contention, just once. A collateral attack
cannot be used to obtain a second opinion on an argument presented and decided earlier.”);
Peoples v. United States, 403 F.3d 844, 846 (7th Cir. 2005) (providing that exception to this rule
exists only under stringent circumstances including (1) an intervening change in law or (2)
discovery of previously withheld evidence).
Edwards raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, and the
Seventh Circuit already disposed of several arguments put forth by Edwards regarding his plea
negotiations, counsel’s sentencing prediction, and counsel’s arguments related to suppressing
Edwards’ videotaped confession. See United States v. Edwards Order, No. 14-2361, at 5–6 (7th
Cir. Jun. 3, 2015). Edwards does not indicate in his petition that any intervening change in law
now provides a basis for his claim, nor does he contend that any “hidden evidence” has come to
light; rather, he argues that these other theories of ineffective assistance of counsel were “better
raised on 2255.” Mot. Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence 10. All Edwards has done is “add
to the list of failings” attributed to his lawyer, see Peoples, 403 F.3d at 846, and a simple change
to the theory of the case is not sufficient reason for the Court to abandon its interest in efficient

dispute resolution and the conservation of judicial resources. Id. Because of the foregoing,
Edwards’ petition must be denied.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner Derek Edwards’ § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence,
ECF No. 1, is DENIED.
Entered June 2, 2017.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE