Bradford v. United States

• Decision Date: 16 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 3:20-cv-00526,Crim. Nos. 3:15-cr-00088-6 & 3:16-cr-00143-2,3:20-cv-00526
• Citation: 520 F.Supp.3d 991
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
• Parties: Santez BRADFORD v. UNITED STATES of America

520 F.Supp.3d 991

Santez BRADFORD

v.UNITED STATES of America

No. 3:20-cv-00526

Crim. Nos. 3:15-cr-00088-6 & 3:16-cr-00143-2

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed February 16, 2021

Philip H. Wehby, Sunny A.M. Koshy, Office of the United States Attorney, Nashville, TN, for Santez Bradford.

William I. Shockley, Law Office of William I. Shockley, Nashville, TN, for United States of America.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Santez Bradford has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 1), in which he claims his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm must be set aside based on Rehaif v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019). Thereafter, appointed counsel filed an Amended Motion, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process and at sentencing. (Doc. No. 7). The Government has filed a response in opposition to both Motions (Doc. No. 11), and Bradford has replied (Doc. No. 12). For the reasons that follow, Bradford's Motions will be denied.

I. Factual Background

During Bradford's sentencing hearing on December 13, 2019, the Court observed that, "[i]n a ten-week period of criminal activity, from December of 2014 to February of 2015," Bradford was "on a rampage," which involved the possession of stolen firearms, and "shooting multiple persons. Thank goodness, nobody was killed." (Case No. 3:16-cr-00143, Doc. No. 156 at 264). The rampage led to two criminal cases (Case Nos. 3:15-00088-6 & 3:16-cr-0043-2) and the return of indictments against Bradford and many others. Bradford was charged in nine counts with crimes ranging from being a felon in possession of a firearm to possessing firearms during the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. On December 20, 2019, Bradford received an effective sentence of 264 months for both cases.

For purposes of his present Motions to Vacate, it is unnecessary for the Court to detail the facts underlying the litany of crimes Bradford pled guilty to on July 5, 2017. Rather, the following summary of facts from the Sixth Circuit on Bradford's direct appeal aptly places his present arguments into context:

Bradford pled guilty to four counts of possessing a firearm as a felon, two counts of possessing a stolen firearm, one count of stealing a firearm, and one count of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. Included in the plea agreement was Bradford's admission to shooting at a group of people on Claiborne Street in Nashville. That shooting arose from an argument Bradford had with Kenneth Underwood, with whom Bradford's sister had a child. After the argument, Bradford acquired a pistol and, with two friends, sought out Kenneth. Instead, he found Kenneth's sister, Quineshia Underwood, and a group of others on Claiborne Street. Bradford and one of his friends shot at the group repeatedly, fortunately hitting no one. Police found eight bullet casings at the scene.

In December 2017, Bradford, acting pro se, sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Bradford explained that he now believed the lawyer who advised him to plead guilty failed to explore the possibility of suppressing some of the evidence against him. Bradford also wrote that he was "really pleading to stuff [he] didn't do." Bradford later clarified that, when he said "stuff [he] didn't do," he was referring to some of the relevant conduct he admitted to in his plea agreement, not any of the charges. The district court construed Bradford's letter as a motion to withdraw his plea, appointed Bradford new counsel, and scheduled a hearing on the motion.

Applying Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court found that Bradford did not have a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). In denying the motion, the district court emphasized that Bradford was aware of the possibility of filing a motion to suppress when he entered the guilty plea; delayed seeking to withdraw the plea; was not claiming innocence; had an adequate plea colloquy; and had prior experience in the criminal justice system which should have informed his decision to plead guilty instead of seeking to suppress the evidence against him.

United States v. Bradford, 822 F. App'x 335, 336-337 (6th Cir. 2020).

The "some of the evidence" that Bradford wanted suppressed, and the "stuff he didn't do" serve as the basis for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. These claims are brought against two different lawyers: David Buckholts, a well-qualified CJA panel attorney who represented Bradford through his change-of-plea hearing; and Gary C. Tamkin, an Assistant Federal Defender, who was appointed after Bradford moved to withdraw his plea and represented him through sentencing.

The evidence Bradford wanted suppressed were incriminating photographs that contained pictures of firearms and some other potential evidence that were taken from a cellphone owned by Heather Coleman, who was Bradford's girlfriend. At the evidentiary hearing regarding Bradford's request to withdraw his plea, Buckholts testified that he spoke with Bradford "multiple times" about filing a motion to suppress, talked with him about the merits of such a motion, and told him "he [Bradford] wouldn't have standing to suppress the photographs off of her [Coleman's] phone." (Case No. 3:15-cr-00088, Doc. No. 732 at 6).¹ Buckholts also conceded that whether to file a motion to suppress was an "important decision." (Id. at 8).

The "stuff he didn't do" relates to his agreeing to admit he shot at Underwood, rather than, as he now claims, shooting into the air just to scare Underwood. This serves as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against Buckholts who allegedly should not have let him agree to the "at" language in the statement of facts used to support his plea. It also serves as the basis for his ineffective assistance claim against Tamkin because, in Bradford's view, he should have been called to rebut the testimony proffered at the sentencing hearing that, in turn, led to a 4-point increase for attempted murder under the advisory Guidelines pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(2)(6)(B).

Again, the Sixth Circuit's decision on direct appeal adds context and meat to the bones of this argument:

At the sentencing hearing, the government presented evidence supporting the attempted murder cross-reference, including testimony from witnesses to the shooting on Claiborne Street, testimony from another person who Bradford told about the shooting, and photographs from Claiborne Street after the shooting. Quineshia testified that on the evening of December 22, 2014, she saw Bradford, who she recognized, and heard him identify her as Kenneth's sister to his friend before firing thirteen to fifteen shots at her from fifty feet away. Underwood further testified that, while neither she nor others were hit by the bullets, she "could feel them coming past" and that she "felt like if [she] would have moved, [she] probably would have got hit." Jeremiah Haynes testified that on December 22, 2014, Bradford asked him for a gun and told him that Kenneth "got to shooting at him."

Bradford argued that the attempted murder cross-reference should not apply because he lacked the intent to kill anyone but had instead just fired in the air to scare Underwood. The district court disagreed and found that, after crediting Quineshia's and Haynes's testimony, the preponderance of the evidence supported the enhancement.

Bradford, 822 F. App'x at 337.

II. Legal Discussion

"The law generally gives federal prisoners just one chance to overturn a final criminal judgment – by alleging any and all errors in a single motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255." Hueso v. Barnhart, 948 F.3d 324, 326 (6th Cir. 2020). Nevertheless, " Section 2255 is not a substitute for a direct appeal, and thus a defendant cannot use it to circumvent the direct appeal process." Regalado v. United States, 334 F.3d 520, 528 (6th Cir. 2003). Consequently, "to obtain collateral review relief a prisoner must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal." United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 166, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982). One who has failed to appeal a claim and therefore procedurally defaulted on that claim "must show either that (1) he had good cause for his failure to raise such arguments and he would suffer prejudice if unable to proceed, or (2) he is actually innocent." Id. citing Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998).

Even though Bradford took a direct appeal, he did not raise any of his present claims in that proceeding, nor does he claim that he is actually innocent of the charges against him. Thus, to be successful on collateral review, he must show both cause and prejudice for his procedural default. With this standard in mind, the Court turns to Bradford's claims.²

A. Rehaif Claim

In Rehaif, the Supreme Court examined the interplay between § 922(g)'s prohibition against carrying a firearm by individuals who fall within certain categories from possessing firearms, and § 924(a)(2)'s provision that a person who knowingly violates the statute is subject to up to ten-years imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the Government was required to prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm, and that defendant knew that he was in a prohibited class (such as being a convicted felon) at the time he possessed the firearm. 139 S. Ct. at 2194. In other words, knowledge of both of these things is an essential element. See United States v. Hobbs, 953 F.3d 853, 857 (6th Cir. 2020) (stating that Rehaif adds a " ‘knowledge-of-status’ element").

Bradford cannot show cause for failing to raise a Rehaif claim on direct appeal. Rehaif was decided on June 21, 2019, and Bradford did not file his notice of appeal until December 23, 2019. (See Case No. 3:15-cr-00088, Doc. No....