Burton v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION RDB-19-0164,Civil Action RDB-21-0392 |
| Parties | DUANE BURTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Petitioner Duane Burton (“Petitioner”) was convicted of orchestrating three bank robberies throughout Maryland and Delaware in 2018 and 2019. (Plea Ag't 11, ECF No. 33.) On April 2, 2019, a federal grand jury issued a two-count Indictment charging Burton with violations of 18 U.S.C § 2113 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. (Indictment, ECF No. 1.) On January 17, 2020, Burton pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment, alleging bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (f). (Plea Ag't ¶ 1.) Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), the parties stipulated to an agreed sentence of 144 months. (Id. ¶ 10.) One year later, on January 21, 2021, this Court sentenced Burton to the agreed term of 144 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. (Judgment 2, ECF No. 51.)
In the years following his sentencing, Burton filed several motions and supplemental briefs challenging his conviction and sentence, all of which remain pending. (See ECF Nos 54, 69, 76, 77, 78, 81, 88, 91.)[1] Across these various submissions, each of which was filed pro se, Burton alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and raises various procedural challenges to his sentence. Most prominently, he claims that his defense attorney failed to challenge his indictment, failed to investigate his medical conditions prior to plea bargaining, and failed to challenge alleged alterations to witness statements adduced by the government during sentencing. (Initial Mot. Vacate 2, ECF No. 54; First Supp. 4-6, ECF No. 69; Second Supp. 2, ECF No. 76, 77 *SEALED*; Mot. Reopen 2-5, ECF No. 78; Mot. Set Aside 3-5, ECF No. 88.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, Petitioner's Motions to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF Nos. 54, 88) are hereby DENIED. Petitioner's Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 81) is also DENIED.
The underlying facts were agreed to by the parties and stipulated in Burton's plea agreement. (See Plea Ag't 11-12.) Petitioner Duane Burton (“Burton”) has two prior federal convictions of bank robbery. (Id. at 11.) While on supervised release for one of these offenses, Burton robbed three banks located in Delaware and Maryland, and stole over $ 7,300.00. (Id.) For all three robberies, Burton was identified wearing similar clothing and glasses, and for two of the robberies, he wore gray New Balance shoes. (Id.) On February 27, 2019, law enforcement executed a federal search warrant for Burton's residence and found the gray sneakers he had worn during the robberies. (Id. at 12.) Petitioner was arrested that same day. (Id.) Following his arrest, Burton waived his Miranda rights and admitted to robbing WSFS Bank in Newark, Delaware; PNC Bank in Howard County, Maryland; and Bank of America in Baltimore City, Maryland. (Id.)
On April 2, 2019, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Burton with two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. (Indictment, ECF No. 1.) Around the same time, Burton was indicted on a single count of bank robbery in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. (See Del. Indictment, ECF No. 1-1, Case No. RDB-20-10.) The Delaware case was transferred to the District of Maryland pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 20, and the two cases were consolidated before the undersigned judge with the consent of both parties. (Consent to Transfer, ECF No. 1, Case No. RDB-20-10; see also Transfer Correspondence, ECF No. 30; Dec. 18, 2019 Ord., ECF No. 31.)
On January 17, 2020, Burton pleaded guilty to Count One of the Maryland Indictment and Count One of the Delaware Indictment, each alleging bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). (Plea Ag't ¶1.)[2] Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the parties stipulated to an agreed sentence of 144 months, but reached no agreement as to the appropriate sentence for his violation of supervised release. (Id. ¶ 10.) The parties stipulated that Burton was to be classified as a career offender under Section 4B1.1(a) of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines, due to two his prior felony convictions for bank robbery. (Id. ¶ 6(e).) This classification yielded a guideline range of 151 to 188 months imprisonment and a final offense level of 29. (Id. ¶ 6(g); Statement of Reasons, ECF No. 52 *SEALED*.) On January 21, 2021, this Court sentenced Burton to the agreed 144 months' imprisonment for the bank robbery charges, with credit for time served in federal custody since May 24, 2019, and 24 months' imprisonment for his violations of supervised release, to run consecutively. (Judgment 2, ECF No. 51; see also Gov't Resp. Opp., ECF No. 89.)
Despite his guilty plea, Burton has filed several challenges to his conviction and sentence. On February 18, 2021, less than one month after his conviction, he filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his crime did not involve the use of violence, force, or intimidation, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. (Mot. Vacate 1-2, ECF No. 54.) Finding these allegations insufficient, this Court provided Petitioner with an opportunity to file an amended petition and furnish additional information regarding his claims. (ECF Nos. 55, 57, 59.) Burton supplemented his Motion on August 23, 2021, but failed to file an amended petition. (First Supp., ECF No. 69.) His time to do so expired on June 4, 2021. Three days later, on June 7, 2021, he appealed his conviction to the Fourth Circuit. (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 60.) In light of the pendency of this appeal, this Court denied his Motion to Vacate without prejudice on September 22, 2021. (ECF No. 70.)
Burton's appeal was dismissed as untimely on December 22, 2021. (ECF No. 72.) Accordingly, on June 27, 2022, Burton moved to reopen his Motion to Vacate, and provided this Court with additional supplemental materials. (See Mot. Reopen, ECF No. 78.)[3] This motion was granted, and on August 11, 2022, Burton filed a Motion for Discovery requesting all discovery materials in both consolidated cases. (See Jun. 30, 2022 Ord., ECF No. 79; Mot. Discovery, ECF No. 81.) Subsequently, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion to Set Aside and Dismiss all Sentences on October 13, 2022, again arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, and raising several due process claims related to his warrant, his arrest, and the timing of grand jury proceedings. (Mot. Set Aside, ECF No. 88.) Petitioner submitted another supplemental brief on November 14, 2022. (Fourth Supp., ECF No. 91.) Petitioner's original § 2255 motion (ECF No. 54), his supplemental materials (ECF Nos. 69, 76, 77, 78, 91),[4] his motion to set aside and dismiss all sentences (ECF No. 88), and his motion for discovery (ECF No. 81) are now pending before this Court, and will be resolved in turn.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner in custody may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on four grounds (1) “the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,” (2) “the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence,” (3) “the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law,” or (4) “the sentence ‘is otherwise subjected to collateral attack.'” HiZZ v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 426-27 (1962) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255). “[A]n error of law does not provide a basis for collateral attack unless the claimed error constituted a ‘fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.'” United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979) (quoting Hill, 368 U.S. at 428). When seeking relief under § 2255, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the asserted grounds for collateral relief by a preponderance of the evidence. See Vanater v. Boles, 377 F.2d 898, 900 (4th Cir. 1967).
Burton's motions and supplemental briefs present an array of arguments against his conviction and sentence. Many of these arguments include very little explanation or analysis. Nevertheless, as Burton has filed his motions pro se, his arguments shall be afforded a liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Construing his claims liberally, Burton alleges that this Court should vacate his sentence because (1) his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) several procedural deficiencies prior to his sentencing constitute violations of his due process rights. For the reasons set forth below, both claims fail, and Burton's motion is hereby DENIED.
Petitioner's primary argument is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. (Mot. Vacate 2; Mot. Reopen 2-5; Mot. Set Aside 3-5; Second Supp. 1; Third Supp. 1-2.) A freestanding ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be properly asserted for the first time in a § 2255 motion. Unzted States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). To set forth a Sixth Amendment claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must satisfy the two-prong test set forth in Strzckland v Washzngton, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which requires the petitioner to show: (1) “that counsel's performance was deficient;” and (2) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial