Williams v. USA
Filing
17
ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 5/21/13 DENYING 1 Petitioner's Petition for Relief, and denying as moot 6 Petitioner's Motion for an Order staying his transfer. See Order. (cc: Petitioner, all counsel) (nm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BOBBY R. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 13-CV-546-JPS
(Case No. 08-CR-302-8-JPS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
As the Court has previously recounted, Mr. Williams has been
regularly corresponding with the Court since the Seventh Circuit dismissed
Mr. Williams’ appeal from the 120-month sentence the Court imposed upon
him. (Docket #15 (citing Docket #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10, #11, #13 (all
docketed at separate numbers in the corresponding criminal case))).
The Court deemed one of Mr. Williams’ letters to be a request for
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket #3 (interpreting Docket #1 to be
a § 2255 request for relief)). In that petition, Mr. Williams requested that he
be permitted to withdraw his plea due to: (1) his trial counsel’s
ineffectiveness, having allegedly told Mr. Williams that Mr. Williams would
likely receive a sentence of imprisonment of 60 months; (2) the Court’s
allegedly incorrect determination that Mr. Williams is a career offender; and
(3) the Court’s alleged abuse of discretion in imposing a sentence greater
than the 60- month mandatory minimum. (Docket #1).
The Court ordered briefing on the matter, and the government
promptly filed a response. (Docket #7). Mr. Williams then filed a reply brief,
in which he asserted new ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
arguments. (Docket #13). The Court ordered that the government respond to
those new assertions (Docket #15), and the government did so (Docket #16).
All of the issues are now fully briefed and ready for decision. For the
reasons below, the Court will deny Mr. Williams’ request for relief.
Turning first to Mr. Williams’ claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the Court finds that Mr. Williams cannot meet his burden to establish such
claim. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant
must establish that his attorney’s performance was objectively unreasonable
and that such unreasonable performance prejudiced the defendant’s defense.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 2, 694 (1984).
Even assuming that Mr. Williams’ trial and appellate counsel acted
unreasonably—which the Court does not believe to be the case—Mr.
Williams still cannot satisfy the latter of the two ineffective assistance prongs.
In order to establish prejudice, so as to satisfy the latter prong, Mr. Williams
would need to show that he would not have pleaded guilty and instead
would have gone to trial, had his trial counsel not provided ineffective
assistance. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); United States v. Wyatt, 574
F.3d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Tezak, 256 F.3d 702, 711 (7th Cir.
2001).
Here, Mr. Williams argues that he would not have entered a guilty
plea if he had known that he might be sentenced as a career offender; the
record, however, establishes otherwise. At his plea colloquy, Mr. Williams
stated that he had reviewed the plea agreement with his attorney; that plea
agreement noted that Mr. Williams still may be deemed a career offender
and that such a finding would not provide him a basis for withdrawal of his
Page 2 of 6
guilty plea. (See, e.g., #238, at ¶¶ 14, 18, 21; Docket #532, at 8). As Mr.
Williams informed the Court at the plea colloquy, he was not under the
impression that he had some other agreement that he would not be
sentenced as a career offender. (Docket #532, at 8–9). Indeed, he informed the
Court that he understood he may be sentenced to up to forty years in prison
and also that the Court was not bound by the assessments of his counsel or
the government. (Docket #532, at 10, 13).
Given all of this evidence, the Court must conclude that Mr. Williams
chose to plead guilty knowing very well that he may have been sentenced as
a career offender and receive a sentence of more than 60 months; thus, the
Court is obliged to find that Mr. Williams has not shown that he would have
gone to trial absent his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. Accordingly,
Mr. Williams cannot succeed on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
particularly given his failure to produce objective evidence beyond his selfserving claims. See, e.g., Hill, 474 U.S. at 59; Wyatt, 574 F.3d at 458; Tezak, 256
F.3d at 711.
Knowing that, the Court is similarly obliged to conclude that Mr.
Williams’ appellate counsel was not ineffective in filing an Anders brief, given
his responsibility to notify the Seventh Circuit of Mr. Williams’ frivolous
claim on appeal. See, e.g., McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1, 486 U.S.
429, 438 (1988); United States v. Barnes, 83 F.3d 934, 940 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding
that a “mere inaccurate prediction” of a sentence, standing alone, does not
establish ineffective assistance of counsel) (citing United States v. Arvanitis,
902 F.2d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 1990); Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 865 (9th Cir.
1986)).
Page 3 of 6
Similarly, Mr. Williams’ newer argument that his attorney should
have requested a 30-month sentence reduction also fails. To begin, Mr.
Williams, himself, raised the issue, and the Court declined to acquiesce in his
request. (Docket #494, at 2). Moreover, the Court ultimately granted the
government’s motion for a downward departure and imposed a sentence
below the guideline range that was to run concurrent to the state sentence Mr.
Williams was already serving. (Docket #494, at 2). For all of these reasons, it
would have made practically no difference if Mr. Williams’ counsel had
raised the issue. The result would have been the same; and, therefore, the
Court cannot conclude that there was any prejudice to Mr. Williams that
would have satisfied the Strickland standard. 460 U.S. at 694. For the same
reason, this argument would have failed on appeal and, accordingly, it was
not ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for Mr. Williams’ attorney to
have failed to raise it at that level.
For these reasons, the Court is obliged to deny all of Mr. Williams’
claims for § 2255 relief pursuant to what he alleges was ineffective assistance
of both trial and appellate counsel.
Additionally, Mr. Williams’ second claim for relief, in which he asserts
that the Court’s career offender determination was in error, must also fail. To
begin, as the government correctly asserts, the issue of misapplication of the
guidelines does not implicate a constitutional error, and Mr. Williams also
failed to raise the issue on direct appeal; accordingly, this claim is not subject
to § 2255 collateral review. (Docket #7, at 6–7 (citing United States v. Wisch,
275 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2001)); Martin v. United States, 109 F.3d 1177, 1178
(7th Cir. 1996)). However, even under review, the Court would still not find
Page 4 of 6
error because Mr. Williams’ sentence of imprisonment from his 1992 drug
conviction fell within the fifteen year period to be counted towards his career
offender status; therefore, the Court’s career offender designation was not in
error. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1); (see United States v. Williams, Case No. 08-CR302-8-JPS, Docket #533, at 5–6). Accordingly, not being subject to collateral
review and also being without merit, this claim for relief must fail.
Mr. Williams’ final claim for relief, in which he asserts that the Court
abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above sixty months, is also
without merit and, therefore, fails. As with Mr. Williams’ claim for relief on
the issue of the Court’s career offender determination, Mr. Williams failed to
raise this claim on direct appeal, making it non-reviewable under § 2255.
Martin, 109 F.3d at 1178. Again, aside from its non-reviewability, the claim
fails on its merits. Here, the Court gave meaningful consideration to the
sentencing factors found in § 3553(a), even imposing a sentence below the
applicable guidelines range, which is presumed to be reasonable. United
States v. Lidell, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir. 2008); (see Williams, Case No. 08-CR302-8-JPS, Docket #533). Therefore, the Court must also hold that this claim
for relief fails.
Having concluded that each of the claims contained in Mr. Williams’
§ 2255 petition for relief must fail, the Court is now obliged to deny Mr.
Williams’ petition. Likewise, there is no need for a further evidentiary
hearing on any of these issues because it is entirely clear from the record that
Mr. Williams is not entitled to relief, but is simply speculating that he would
have acted differently at the change of plea stage below, which is not an
appropriate basis to hold an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Kafo v. United
Page 5 of 6
States, 467 F.3d 1063, 1067 (7th Cir. 2006); Miller v. United States, 183 Fed.
Appx. 571, 578 (7th Cir. 2006).
Finally, the Court notes that, during the pendency of this matter, Mr.
Williams has sent several letters and requests complaining about the location
of his confinement. (Docket #6, #8). As to that issue, the Court requested
information from the probation department and the Bureau of Prisons, and
was informed that there is no standard practice to keep a § 2255 prisoner
confined in a single location during the pendency of filing brief; the Court
does not want to interfere with the prerogatives of the Bureau of Prisons with
regard to the matters of inmate classification or placement and, therefore, has
not ordered that Mr. Williams’ transfer be stayed. Accordingly, the Court
will deny Mr. Williams’ request for a stay of transfer.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Williams’ petition for relief (Docket #1) be
and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Williams’ motion for an order
staying his transfer (Docket #6) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 21st day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 6 of 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?