Michael v. United States of America
Filing
8
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DENIED in all respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/21/16. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
THEODORE MICHAEL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Case No. 4:13cv02071HEA
)
)
)
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence [Doc. #1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States of
America has responded to the motion.
Movant has not filed any Reply to
Response to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence.
Facts and Background 1
On October 13, 2011 Petitioner, along with 11 others, was charged in a
superseding indictment. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess
1
The facts are taken from the file and docket entries of case number 4:11CR00400 HEA-DDN,
Presentence investigation report, and the plea agreement filed in this matter.
with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base and marijuana, in violation of Title
21, United States Code, Section 846. Subsequent to indictment, Petitioner filed a
waiver of pretrial motions. On May 10, 2012, he appeared before United States
Magistrate Judge David Noce and waived his right to file motions.
On July 10, 2012, Petitioner appeared before this Court and pleaded guilty to a
lesser included offense in Count I. Under oath he denied any type of mental illness
and denied the consumption any alcohol or drugs in the preceding 36-hour period.
He indicated to the court that he had a college degree in business management. As
a consequence of this colloquy he was determined to be competent to proceed.
Specific inquiry was made as to whether Petitioner was satisfied with his
attorney’s advice and performance whereupon he stated he was fully satisfied with
the work his attorney had done for him and that he had no complaint against his
attorney in any way. After reviewing his trial rights with him, as well as the terms
of the plea agreement, the United States informed for the record what facts it
would prove in the event the case proceeded to trial. The facts were also included
in the written plea agreement between the parties. At the conclusion of the
recitation of facts, Petitioner was asked, whether all those things as stated were true
and correct to which he responded in the affirmative. He was specifically asked
whether he agreed and admitted that the offense involved in excess of 50 kilograms
of marijuana and he again responded in the affirmative and without equivocation.
2
The record also establishes that at the time of his plea, Petitioner had reviewed
and signed the guilty plea agreement. The guilty plea agreement clearly set forth
the joint recommendation of the parties that the base offense level was 20
(representing more than 40, but less than 60 kilograms of marijuana).
Petitioner
Michael had also had the benefit of a “pre-plea” Presentence Investigation Report.
The pre plea PSR concluded that the amount of marijuana for which Michael was
responsible was more than 40 kilograms but less than 60 kilograms.
Michael was sentenced to a term of 37 months imprisonment on October 11,
2012. No appeal was taken from the conviction or sentence.
STANDARD FOR RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2255
In order to state a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
Petitioner must prove two elements: (1) that his attorney’s performance was
constitutionally deficient, and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his
defense. Strickland v. Williams, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Under this framework,
the Petitioner bears the “heavy burden” of proving both constitutional deficiency
and prejudice. Brown v. United States, 311 F.3d 875, 878 (8th Cir. 2002);
Patterson v. United States, 133 F. 3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S.
356, 371 (2010) (noting that “[s]urmounting Strickland’s high bar is never an easy
task”).
3
In order to meet this burden under the first prong of the Strickland test,
Petitioner must not only prove that his counsel made errors, but that those errors
were “so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed . . .
by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Far from guaranteeing
exceptional performance of counsel, the Sixth Amendment guarantees only
“reasonably effective assistance” of counsel. Id. at 688. Under this standard,
counsel is entitled to a “strong presumption” that his conduct falls within the wide
range of professionally reasonable assistance. Nguyen v. United States, 114 F. 3d
699, 703-03 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
Even if a Movant succeeds in demonstrating that his counsel made errors of
constitutional proportion, he still cannot prevail unless he proves that in the
absence of those errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (“If it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance
claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be
followed.”).
DISCUSSION
Right to Evidentiary Hearing
The Court must hold an evidentiary hearing to consider claims in a § 2255
motion “‘[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively
show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.’” Shaw v. United States, 24 F.3d
4
1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 1994) (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255).
Thus, a movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing “‘when the facts alleged, if
true, would entitle [the movant] to relief.’” Payne v. United States, 78 F.3d 343,
347 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Wade v. Armontrout, 798 F.2d 304, 306 (8th Cir.
986)). The Court may dismiss a claim “without an evidentiary hearing if the claim
is inadequate on its face or if the record affirmatively refutes the factual assertions
upon which it is based.” Shaw, 24 F.3d at 1043 (citing Larson v. United States, 905
F.2d 218, 220-21 (8th Cir. 1990)). Since the Court finds that Movant’s claims can
be conclusively determined based upon the parties’ filings and the records of the
case, no evidentiary hearing will be necessary.
CLAIMS
Movant asserts one single issue in his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence. He argues that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by
failing to object, at sentencing, to the calculation of the drug quantity. Petitioner
specifically alleges here that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel
for failing to argue at sentencing that there was an error in calculating the drug
quantity because relevant conduct included drug quantities resulting from the
conversion of seized cash into marijuana. Consequently, he claims that his
guideline range was erroneously calculated to be 30-37 months, instead of 21-27
months.
5
Did His Attorney Provide Ineffective Assistance of Counsel By Failing to
Contest the Quantity of Drugs at Sentencing?
Petitioner signed a plea agreement and admitted, under oath, that the parties
agree that more than 40 kilograms of marijuana were attributable and reasonably
foreseeable to the Petitioner. He further agreed the amounts were based on
intercepted phone calls, reliable witness statements, and various seizures of
marijuana and currency throughout the investigation. Petitioner and the United
States agreed that the amount was the proper amount involved in the offense which
was the subject of the plea.
Petitioner Michael specifically agreed to the drug quantity of which he now
complains. The record also reflects that he benefitted from a pre-plea PSR, which
also referenced the quantity of which he now complains and argues that his lawyer
was ineffective for failing to object at sentencing.
Petitioner must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. In addition, under Strickland, “[t]he conduct at issue
must be evaluated with an eye toward the circumstances surrounding the decisions
at the time they were made, not in hindsight.” Strickland, 466 U.S at 680. The
circumstances at the time of the sentencing in this matter unequivocally
6
demonstrate that the failure to object was a function of Petitioner knowing in
advance what the quantity would be in the PSR; agreeing to that amount and
admitting under oath that he was responsible for that amount. It is supremely
ludicrous to expect that an attorney who had done the bidding of his client and
secured considerable benefit for his client would now have his ability called into
question considering all attendant circumstances and the significant body of law on
the issue.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing analysis, Movant has failed to establish he is entitled
to a hearing and has failed to present any basis upon which the Court may grant
relief.
Certificate of Appealablity
The federal statute governing certificates of appealability provides that “[a]
certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
A substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right requires that “issues
are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the issues differently,
or the issues deserve further proceedings.” Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th
Cir. 1997). Based on the record, and the law as discussed herein, the Court finds
7
that Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2016.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?