Heiden v. United States of America
Filing
10
ORDER granting 7 Motion to Add a New Ground ; granting 8 Motion to Add Documents; granting 9 Motion to Add Another Ground ; denying 1 Motion to Vacate Sentence (2255)(Criminal Case No. 09-cr-3040-LRR). A certificate of appealability is denied.. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 8/6/13. (ksy)(Copy w/NEF to Plf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
WADE CHARLES HEIDEN,
Movant,
No. C12-3093-LRR
No. CR09-3040-LRR
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
ORDER
____________________________
This matter appears before the court on Wade Charles Heiden’s motion to vacate,
set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (civil docket no. 1). Wade
Charles Heiden (“the movant”) filed such motion on December 3, 2012. Also before the
court is the movant’s supplement (civil docket no. 2), filed on January 2, 2013, motion to
add new ground (civil docket no. 7), filed on June 17, 2013, motion to add documents
(civil docket no. 8), filed on June 20, 2013, and second motion to add new ground (civil
docket no. 9), filed on July 30, 2013.1
With respect to the movant’s desire to have the court consider additional documents,
the court deems it appropriate to do so. Accordingly, the motion to add documents (civil
docket no. 8) shall be granted. Concerning the supplement, motion to add new ground and
second motion to add new ground, the court deems it appropriate to address the merits of
the additional grounds that the movant raised even though some of them are untimely. Cf.
United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451, 457 (8th Cir. 1999) (concluding an otherwise
1
No response from the government is required because the 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion and file make clear that the movant is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255;
Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
untimely amendment to a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion does not relate back to a timely filed
motion when the original claims are distinctly separate from the claims in the amendment).
Accordingly, the movant’s motion to add new ground (civil docket no. 7) and second
motion to add new ground (civil docket no. 9) shall be granted.
A district court is given discretion in determining whether to hold an evidentiary
hearing on a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Oldham, 787 F.2d 454,
457 (8th Cir. 1986). In exercising that discretion, the district court must determine
whether the alleged facts, if true, entitle the movant to relief. See Payne v. United States,
78 F.3d 343, 347 (8th Cir. 1996). “Accordingly, [a district court may summarily dismiss
a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without an evidentiary hearing] if (1) the . . .
allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle the [movant] to relief, or (2) the allegations
cannot be accepted as true because they are contradicted by the record, inherently
incredible, or conclusions rather than statements of fact.” Engelen v. United States, 68
F.3d 238, 240-41 (8th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also Delgado v. United States,
162 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary
where allegations, even if true, do not warrant relief or allegations cannot be accepted as
true because they are contradicted by the record or lack factual evidence and rely on
conclusive statements); United States v. Hester, 489 F.2d 48, 50 (8th Cir. 1973) (stating
that no evidentiary hearing is necessary where the files and records of the case demonstrate
that relief is unavailable or where the motion is based on a question of law). Stated
differently, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion can be dismissed without a hearing where “the files
and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255; see also Standing Bear v. United States, 68 F.3d 271, 272 (8th Cir. 1995)
(per curiam).
The court concludes that it is able to resolve the movant’s claims from the record.
See Rogers v. United States, 1 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding “[a]ll of the
information that the court needed to make its decision with regard to [the movant’s] claims
2
was included in the record . . . .” and, therefore, the court “was not required to hold an
evidentiary hearing”) (citing Rule Governing Section 2255 Proceedings 8(a) and United
States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980)). The
evidence of record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is not entitled to the relief
sought. Specifically, it indicates that the movant’s claims are devoid of merit. As such,
the court finds that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing.
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a federal court may move the sentencing
court to vacate, set aside or correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To obtain relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner must establish: (1) the sentence was
imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court was
without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the
maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.
See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255).
In his amended motion, the movant complains that his constitutional right to due
process, to counsel and/or to not be put in jeopardy twice were violated: (1) when a writ
of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was improperly executed; (2) when an officer produced
a false return; (3) when trial counsel permitted him to be sentenced to charges that were
dismissed by the State of Iowa; (4) when he remained in federal custody after the State of
Iowa dismissed nearly identical charges; and (5) when trial counsel failed to object to the
weight of the drugs that were used for sentencing purposes. All of those assertions are
belied by the record, which includes but is not limited to: the indictment (criminal docket
no. 2), the arrest warrant (criminal docket no. 3), the application for a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum (criminal docket no. 5), the order granting the application for a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum (criminal docket no. 6), the arrest warrant
returned executed (criminal docket no. 11), the information (criminal docket no. 22), the
waiver of indictment (criminal docket no. 24), the notice of consent to entry of a plea of
guilty (criminal docket no. 25), the report and recommendation to accept guilty plea
3
(criminal docket no. 29), the parties’ plea agreement (criminal docket no. 31), the order
accepting the report and recommendation (criminal docket no. 33), the pre-sentence
investigation report (criminal docket no. 46), the sentencing memoranda (criminal docket
nos. 48 & 49), the judgment (criminal docket no. 51) and the statement of reasons
(criminal docket no. 52).
In light of the record, the court makes the following findings. First, the court finds
that the movant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty. See Walker v. United States,
115 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir. 1997) (“[A] valid guilty plea forecloses an attack on
conviction unless ‘on the face of the record the court had no power to enter the conviction
or impose the sentence.’”); United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994)
(a voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waives all defects except those related to
jurisdiction); see also United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 921-23 (8th Cir. 2010) (making
clear that a challenge based on a court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a
case survives a defendant’s guilty plea). Second, the movant’s mistaken beliefs as to the
facts and the law are not a valid basis to grant relief in this action. Third, the court finds
that the conduct of trial counsel fell within a wide range of reasonable professional
assistance, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d
674 (1984), and trial counsel’s performance did not prejudice the movant’s defense, id. at
692-94.
And, lastly, the court finds that no sentencing error occurred because it
appropriately considered the parties’ sentencing agreement and all of the factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 562 F.3d 892, 898 (8th Cir.
2009) (observing that a sentencing judge is only constrained by the statutory maximum and
minimum for an offense and the factors included in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
All of the movant’s claims are devoid of merit. The movant pleaded guilty to the
charge that was included in the information, not the indictment. In addition, the movant
misunderstands the nature of federal proceedings and state proceedings. The government
properly obtained custody of the movant, and it makes no difference whatsoever that the
4
State dismissed the charges that it had filed against the movant. Further, the movant
entered into a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(c)(1)(C). As part of such plea agreement, the movant stipulated to a 120 month term
of imprisonment and waived his right to file a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. Contrary to the movant’s assertion, he was not subject to a mandatory minimum
sentence and drug quantity did not determine the movant’s sentence.
Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the denial of the movant’s amended 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion comports with the Constitution, results in no “miscarriage of
justice” and is consistent with the “rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Hill, 368
U.S. at 428; see also United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a
narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised for the first time on direct appeal
and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” (citing Poor
Thunder v. United States, 810 F.2d 817, 821 (8th Cir. 1987))). Accordingly, the movant’s
amended motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 shall
be denied. Because the court’s resolution of the movant’s claims is not debatable or
wrong, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 shall not issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1)
The movant’s motion to add new ground (civil docket no. 7), motion to add
documents (civil docket no. 8) and second motion to add new ground (civil
docket no. 9) are granted.
(2)
The movant’s amended motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.
5
(3)
A certificate of appealability is denied.
DATED this 6th day of August, 2013.
6
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?