Godfrey v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER Screening and Dismissing § 2255 Motion. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 9/20/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION

SYLVAN GODFREY,

FILED
SEP 2 0 2016

~~

3: 16-CV-03030-RAL
Plaintiff,
ORDER SCREENING AND DISMISSING
§ 2255 MOTION

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

On July 4, 2016, Sylvan Godfrey filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or
Correct Sentence. Doc. 1. Godfrey raises four interrelated grounds for relief: l) "The statutes charged
are beyond Congress's constitutional power to enact, under a strict construction of the Constitution; 2)
"Under the strict construction of the judicial article, the district courts cannot be vested with criminal
jurisdiction over cases to which the U.S. is a party to;" 3) "The Commerce Clause cannot license
Congress to enact criminal prohibition, much less the Major Crimes Act;" and 4) "Without amendments
to the legislative and judicial articles of the Constitution, the Federal Government is precluded from
reaching the conduct charged." Doc. 1.
This Court has conducted the required preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings, and "it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record
of prior proceedings that [Godfrey] is not entitled to relief." Thus, Godfrey's§ 2255 motion is dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.
The facts surrounding the conviction of Godfrey are set forth in United States v. Godfrey, 611
Fed. Appx 364 (8th Cir. 2015), and need not be repeated at length here in order to address the grounds in
the § 2255 motion. In brief, Godfrey was indicted, pleaded not guilty, had a jury trial, and was found
guilty on one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child. The count of conviction was based on 18

U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(D). Godfrey received a sentence of 360 months in prison followed
by five years of supervised release. Godfrey appealed his conviction, and the United States Court of
Appeals affirmed the conviction on May 4, 2015. Docs. 98, 99 in 13-CR-30118. The mandate from the
Eighth Circuit issued on June 16, 2015, after the Eighth Circuit denied Godfrey's request for rehearing en
bane. Docs. 101, 102 in 13-CR-30118. Godfrey did not appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States, but timely filed his § 2255 motion within one year of when his time to file a petition for writ of
certiorari ran.
Godfrey's four grounds in his § 2255 motion challenge the constitutional, congressional, and in
tum judicial authority to charge and convict him of this crime.

Godfrey believes that there is no

constitutional or valid congressional authorization for federal judicial authority over him. Godfrey is
mistaken in that belief.
Article III, § 2 extends federal judicial power "to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States .... " Article III, § 2, clearly contemplates criminal
jurisdiction in federal courts by continuing: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,
shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crime shall have been committed
.... " Nothing in the Constitution debars district courts from jurisdiction in cases involving the United
States, and the Constitution contemplates that occurring in Article III and in the Bill of Rights. Portions
of the Bill of Rights-the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eight
Amendment-were designed to protect defendants in federal court criminal prosecutions, making it all
the more obvious that the Constitution extends federal judicial power to criminal cases brought by the
United States.
As related to federal jurisdiction over Godfrey and his particular crime, the Government charged

crimes under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2)(D). Section 1153 of Title 18 is known as the
Major Crimes Act and extends federal criminal jurisdiction in cases involving "Indians" in "Indian
country" over certain listed crimes, including "a felony under chapter 109A." 18 U.S.C. 1153. Chapter
109A in turn outlaws sexual abuse in federal enclaves and contains 18 U.S.C. § 2241 through§ 2248, the
2

statutes defining the crime of aggravated sexual abuse of a child for which Godfrey was charged and
convicted. The Supreme Court of the United States initially upheld the constitutionality of the Major
Crimes Act in 1886, and it has consistently been upheld since. United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375
(1886); see also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977).

After all, Article I, § 8 of the

Constitution of course vests broad legislative authority in Congress, including the power "[t]o regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," and "[t]o
make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and
all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Godfrey stipulated
that he is an "Indian" and that the places where the alleged crimes occurred were in "Indian country," so
application of§ 1153 to provide federal criminal jurisdiction over Godfrey and his crime has never been
in question.
Because it plainly appears that the grounds in Godfrey's § 2255 motion do not entitle him to any
relief, it is hereby
ORDERED that the § 2255 motion be and is dismissed on initial screening under 28 U.S.C.
§2255(b) and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.

DATED this 20th day of September, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

~Aq:f?=
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3