United States of America, v. Hicks
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 5/23/2016. Mailed notice (ao,)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
No. 15 C 3078
Judge James B. Zagel
ISAIAH HICKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this § 2255 motion, Isaiah Hicks seeks to overturn his sentence for a large-scale illegal
drug distribution conspiracy. He was convicted on ten counts. The Court sentenced him to 360
months of imprisonment. He appealed conviction and sentence but did not prevail. The Court of
Appeals affirmed conviction and sentence for reasons stated in United States v. Long, et al., 748
F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2014). The opinion stated that Hicks "led a large organization that distributed
crack cocaine on the South Side of Chicago. He oversaw the acquisition and packaging of the
drugs with the help from...others. ...Hicks sold the cocaine to distributors on credit." I noted on
the record that Hicks ran a well-organized operation. Hicks filed this § 2255 motion well before
the time to do so expired.
Hicks does not seek an outright acquittal. His claim is that his lawyer did not (but should
have) explained the law of conspiracy and the advantages and disadvantages of a plea agreement.
But, it is clear that no plea agreement was ever offered by the prosecution. Hicks does not claim
that the government offered a plea deal. It was clear to me in the run-up to trial and the trial itself
that the prosecution would not and did not offer a plea deal of any kind to Hicks.
It is true that Hicks could have pled guilty without having a plea agreement, but a
volunteered agreement would not have reduced the guideline range of 360 months to life. The
three-point reduction would not have bettered the position of Hicks. There was, in fact, a single
1
count which led to a 360-month guideline sentence. Hicks was provided with case materials
which were provided in paper copies of the documents in the case.
I recall the case in detail because of the long period of investigation by law officers and
the long period of observing the conduct of Hicks. The bottom line is that the government did not
offer a "plea deal" to Hicks, and this is so because Hicks was the leader and manager of the
illegal drug business. Considering Hicks' essential role as the architect and manager of a very
large and lengthy criminal enterprise, he was likely to be the last defendant to have obtained an
agreement. In the context of this case, there was no chance that the government would have
offered any form of benefits or sentence reduction. None of the papers in the case would support
proof that the government would offer anything of value to Hicks as a defendant.
The government's leverage in this case against Hicks was enormous and its interest in
offering a plea agreement was zero. A plea of guilty offered without an agreement had no value
in the context of this case. The guideline would still be no lower than 360 months, and an
experienced defense counsel would understand that plea negotiation was not an element in
preparing a defense of the charges faced by Hicks.
The motion to correct or vacate sentence or set it aside is denied.
ENTER:
James B. Zagel
United States District Judge
DATE: May 23, 2016
2
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?