Collins v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:22-cv-00161,Criminal 5:18-cr-00068 |
| Parties | RONALD COLLINS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending before the Court are Movant's pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Motion to Appear Before the Court. (ECF Nos. 196, 202).[1] This matter is assigned to the Honorable Irene C. Berger, United States District Judge, and has been referred by Standing Order to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for the submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Movant's § 2255 motion be DENIED, and this matter be DISMISSED, with prejudice, and removed from the docket of the Court. As the undersigned conclusively FINDS that Movant is not entitled to the relief requested, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970). Therefore, Movant's Motion to Appear Before the Court is DENIED. (ECF No. 202).
In August 2013, Movant was arrested on a criminal complaint filed in the Raleigh County, West Virginia Magistrate Court charging him with making terroristic threats against a law enforcement officer. (ECF No. 49-5). At a December 3, 2013 hearing in the criminal matter, the Circuit Court of Raleigh County decided that Movant should undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess his current competency. (ECF Nos. 49-6 49-7). On January 15, 2014, Movant was indicted by a Raleigh County grand jury on three counts related to the terroristic threats alleged in the complaint. (ECF No. 49-8).
On February 25, 2014, Dr. Bobby Miller, a board certified psychiatrist, issued a report concerning his evaluation of Movant. (ECF No. 49-9). Dr. Miller assessed Movant with inter alia, bipolar disorder and found that Movant was “currently psychotic with paranoia in the context of irrational grandiosity.” Id. at 13. He opined that Movant was “not presently capable to participate in his legal process,” but added that Movant could “be restored to competency with inpatient psychiatric hospitalization in a reasonable amount of time” and recommended that Movant be admitted to Sharpe Hospital, a state-operated mental health facility. (Id.). Based on this evaluation, the Raleigh County prosecutor moved for a judicial finding of incompetency and for Movant's commitment. (ECF No. 49-10).
On March 27, 2014, the Circuit Court of Raleigh County conducted an evidentiary hearing on the prosecution's motion. (Id.). After considering testimony from Dr. Miller West Virginia State Trooper R. A. Marsh, and Movant, the Court issued an order finding Movant “presently ... incompetent to stand trial,” but also finding a substantial likelihood that Movant could attain competency with appropriate treatment. (ECF No. 49-11). Accordingly, the Court committed Movant to Sharpe Hospital for restorative treatment in accordance with West Virginia Code §§ 27-6A-1 et seq. (ECF No. 49-11). Over Movant's objections, the Court instructed that Movant was to remain at Sharpe Hospital until he had attained competency, even though the commitment would necessitate a continuance of his case. (Id.).
On October 20, 2014, Movant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. (ECF No. 197 at 27-36). In the petition, Movant challenged the validity of the commitment order, asserting a number of grounds as to why the order was void. However, Movant remained at Sharpe Hospital for approximately six months at which time he was deemed to be competent to stand trial. (ECF No. 49-12).
At a hearing on November 17, 2014, the Circuit Court of Raleigh County ordered that Movant be transferred to the Veteran's Administration Medical Center and placed on home incarceration with electronic monitoring until alternative home incarceration residency could be approved by the Court. (ECF No. 49-13). The Court noted in its order that Movant had filed a petition for habeas relief, but indicated that Movant had agreed to dismiss the proceeding “as the purpose of the petition [was] accomplished.” (Id.). Of note, the Circuit Court of Raleigh County made no substantive ruling on the petition prior to its dismissal, and no order was ever entered voiding or otherwise setting aside the commitment order. Ultimately, the state criminal charges against Movant were dismissed. (ECF No. 49-14).
On April 3, 2018, Movant was indicted in this federal court action. (ECF No. 23). According to the indictment, on or about January 6, 2013, Movant provided false information on an ATF Form 4473 in connection with the purchase of a firearm. (Id.). In particular, Movant denied having ever been committed to a mental health facility. Five days after completing the form, Movant retrieved and possessed the firearm even though he was prohibited from doing so given his prior commitment to Sharpe Hospital. (Id.). Movant was charged with one count of providing false information on the form and one count of illegally possessing a firearm. (Id.).
Prior to trial, Movant's counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss the indictment, arguing that Movant was denied procedural due process during the underlying state court proceeding, which led to his commitment to Sharpe Hospital. (ECF No. 48). He also argued that the law prohibiting gun possession by mentally ill persons should be voided as a violation of the Second Amendment, because the correlation between mental illness and gun violence was insufficient to justify the prohibition. (ECF No. 48). Defense counsel also filed a separate motion, asking the Court to strike “surplusage” from the second count of the indictment, which stated that Movant had been adjudicated a “mental defective.” (ECF No. 52). The Court denied the motion to dismiss, but granted the motion to strike surplusage. (ECF No. 88). The Court explained that federal court was not the proper venue to litigate the commitment order as Movant had not appealed the order in state court. (Id. at 7-8). The Court similarly rejected Movant's Second Amendment argument, pointing out that both the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit”) had recognized a valid limitation on the right to bear arms for those persons suffering from mental illness. (Id. at 8-10). However, the Court agreed to strike the language describing Movant as a mental defective, noting that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) placed the same prohibition on a citizen who was adjudicated as a mental defective as was placed on a citizen who had been committed to a mental institution. Because the parties did not dispute that Movant had been involuntarily committed to Sharpe Hospital, an adjudication of his mental status as “defective” was unnecessary to prove illegal possession of the firearm. (Id. at 10).
On March 3, 2019, Movant's counsel requested a continuance of the trial date to allow the Supreme Court time to consider and rule on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). In Rehaif, a defendant convicted of illegally possessing a firearm argued that the conviction should be set aside, because the Government had not proven that the defendant knew he was a member of a category of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm. Movant argued that he should be permitted to offer evidence of his mens rea, as the United States had not pleaded that Movant knew of his prohibited status. (ECF No. 116). The Court denied the motion, explaining that the decision in Rehaif would not impact the scope of the evidence permitted at trial. (ECF No. 120). The Court explained that the United States was already required to prove that Movant knew he had been committed to a mental institution in order to prove the charge that he had lied on the ATF form. (Id.). The Court added that, to the extent Movant wanted to challenge the validity of the commitment order, Rehaif had no bearing on the Court's prior ruling that this issue was not relevant to the federal charges.
Trial began on May 11, 2019 and concluded the following day with a jury verdict of guilty on both counts. (ECF Nos. 123, 124, 128). Movant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial, which were both denied. (ECF Nos. 141, 142, 145). Movant was sentenced on August 14, 2019 to a total of sixty months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. (ECF No. 159).
Movant filed a timely appeal with the Fourth Circuit in which he challenged his conviction on the charge of illegal possession of a firearm. United States v. Collins, No. 19-4596 (4th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019); (ECF No. 167). On appeal, Movant contended that the conviction should be reversed because (1) the indictment failed to allege a crime as it did not assert that Movant knew of his prohibited status as required by Rehaif; (2) that the district court erred when it rejected Movant's Second Amendment argument; and (3) that the commitment order entered by the Circuit Court of Raleigh County was invalid and could not support a § 922(g)(4) conviction. As to the latter contention, Movant argued that the commitment order was temporary, not final; that he had attained competency prior to possessing the firearm; and that the State of West Virginia did not report Movant to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) or force him to immediately surrender his firearms as required by West Virginia law. Movant further asserted as grounds for reversal...
To continue reading
Request your trial