BRINSON v. USA
Filing
1
OPINION & ORDER as to EARL BRINSON indicating that (Crim No. 15-87, Docket No. 1579) MOTION to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255 filed by EARL BRINSON is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/2/2016. (bdk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
EARL BRINSON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Criminal No. 15-87
Civil No. 16-1268
Judge Nora Barry Fischer
OPINION AND ORDER
SYNOPSIS
In this matter, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one Count of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant was
sentenced to a term of 120 months imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised
release. He did not take an appeal. Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate his
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, on grounds that counsel was ineffective for failing to
seek a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4. For the following reasons,
Defendant’s Motion will be denied, and no certificate of appealability shall issue.
OPINION
I.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Relief is available under Section 2255 only under exceptional circumstances, when the
claimed errors of law are "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete
miscarriage of justice," or "an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair
procedure." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962). A district court need not hold an
1
evidentiary hearing on a Section 2255 motion if the motion, files, and records show conclusively
that the defendant is not entitled to relief. United States v. Ritter, 93 F. App’x. 402 (3d Cir.
2004). Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, and Defendant’s submissions have been
considered accordingly. See United States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 334 (3d Cir. 2007). In this
case, a hearing is unnecessary, and the Motion will be disposed of on the record.
II.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
Defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a downward
departure pursuant to U.S.S.G § 5H1.4, which addresses a defendant’s physical condition. In
particular, Defendant avers that his severe physical disability would have entitled him to a
downward departure.
In the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a court should be "highly
deferential" when evaluating an attorney's conduct; there is a "strong presumption" that the
attorney's performance was reasonable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). "It
is...only the rare claim of ineffectiveness of counsel that should succeed under the properly
deferential standard to be applied in scrutinizing counsel's performance." United States v. Gray,
878 F. 2d 702, 711 (3d Cir. 1989). The inquiry rests on "whether counsel's deficient
performance renders the result of the . . . proceeding fundamentally unfair," or strips the
defendant of a "substantive or procedural right to which the law entitles him." Strickland, 466
U.S. at 844.
To demonstrate that counsel was ineffective, a defendant must show that counsel's
performance fell below "the wide range of professionally competent assistance" and also that the
deficient conduct prejudiced defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Failure to meet either
prong of the analysis is fatal to a claim of ineffective assistance. Cherys v. United States, 552 F.
2
App’x. 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2014). Counsel's conduct must be assessed according to the facts of the
particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
Under the prejudice prong, the pertinent question is "whether there is a reasonable probability
that, absent the errors," the result would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695; see also
Gray, 878 F.2d at 709-13. “Speculation and conjecture are insufficient to establish prejudice.”
United States v. Tilley, No. 6-222, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15844, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17,
2011).
Here, Defendant entered into a plea agreement that provided for a 120-month term of
imprisonment which was also the mandatory minimum penalty for the offense of conviction. See
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(i), 846. The plea was entered pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C), which provides that a specific, agreed-upon sentence is binding on the Court once it
accepts the plea agreement. The transcript of Defendant’s plea colloquy is not of record.
Nonetheless, it is apparent from the Court’s files that Defendant, at his September 29, 2015
change of plea hearing, acknowledged understanding the charges and his rights, application of
the sentencing guidelines, and the ramifications of his guilty plea. “Solemn declarations in open
court carry a strong presumption of verity." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977).
Indeed, Defendant does not challenge his plea on voluntariness or other grounds.
“[B]ecause of the mandatory nature of the 11(c)(1)(C) plea, at the sentencing hearing —
where motions for downward departure are properly heard — counsel was precluded from
making any arguments that Petitioner warranted a downward departure.” United States v. Clark,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45163 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2016).
Therefore, counsel’s conduct did not
fall below applicable standards, and there is no reasonable probability that the outcome would
3
have been altered had counsel acted differently. Defendant cannot prevail on either prong of
Strickland.
III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Under 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c)(2), a "certificate of appealability may issue only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."
Here,
Defendant has not made such a showing, and no certificate of appealability shall issue.
CONCLUSION
In sum, Defendant has not demonstrated that counsel’s conduct either was deficient or
caused him prejudice under applicable standards. His Motion will be denied, and no certificate
of appealability shall issue. An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2016, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate [ECF No. 1579]
is DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
BY THE COURT:
s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
U.S. District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.
Earl Brinson
USMS 35705068
Medical Center Federal Prisoners
PO Box 4000
Springfield, MO 65801
4
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?