Darst v. United States

Decision Date13 June 2022
Docket Number8:21-cv-1292-WFJ-JSS,Crim. 8:13-cr-181-MSS-TBM
PartiesGREGORY ALBERT DARST, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
ORDER

WILLIAM F. JUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Mr Darst (Petitioner) petitions for a writ of coram nobis and moves to compel the United States to disclose documents in discovery. Dkts. 20 and 21. The United States responds to the amended petition and opposes the amended motion to compel. Dkt. 24. Petitioner replies to the response to the amended petition. Dkt. 25. After reviewing all documents submitted by the parties, the Court DENIES the amended coram nobis petition and the amended motion to compel.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2013, a jury found Petitioner guilty of one count of corrupt interference with Internal Revenue Laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), and four counts of failure to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C § 7203. Crim. Dkt. 93. Judge Mary Scriven sentenced Petitioner to twelve months and a day in prison for the corrupt interference conviction and a concurrent six months for the failure to file a tax return convictions, followed by twelve months of supervised release. Crim. Dkt. 111 at 2.

Petitioner neither appealed his convictions nor moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentences under 28 U.S.C § 2255.[1]

Eight years later, Mr. Darst petitions for a writ of coram nobis. Dkt. 20. In his amended petition, he contends that he recently discovered that the Internal Revenue Service falsified records which caused him to suffer criminal prosecution. Dkt. 20 at 1. He contends that he discovered that the IRS records show that he filed Form 1040A tax returns on his behalf for years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Dkt. 20 at 4-5. Under the penalty of perjury, he swears that he never filed a Form 1040A tax return. Dkt. 20 at 1. He admits that he discovered these “falsified” records on December 29, 2016, and that he learned about the legal remedy of coram nobis in October 2019. Dkt. 20 at 5. He further contends that commissioners for the IRS announced that filing a tax return is voluntary. Dkt. 20 at 2 n.3, 4, 9-10. He demands dismissal and expungement of his criminal convictions. Dkt. 20 at 11.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy of last resort available only in compelling circumstances where necessary to achieve justice.” United States v. Mills, 221 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th Cir. 2000). [C]ourts may consider coram nobis petitions only where no other remedy is available and the petitioner presents sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier.” Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204. “Such compelling circumstances exist only when the error involves a matter of fact of the most fundamental character which has not been put in issue or passed upon and which renders the proceeding itself irregular and invalid.” Moody v. United States, 874 F.2d 1575, 1576-77 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55, 69 (1914)). “Such errors do not include ‘prejudicial misconduct in the course of the trial, the misbehavior or partiality of jurors, and newly discovered evidence.' Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Mayer, 235 U.S. at 69)). “Because of the availability of habeas review, the Supreme Court has found it ‘difficult to conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where [coram nobis relief] would be necessary or appropriate.' Lowery v. United States, 956 F.2d 227, 229 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469, 476 n.4 (1947)).

ANALYSIS
Timeliness

A court may consider a coram nobis petition “only where the petitioner presents sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier.” Mills, 221 F.3d at 1204. “This issue requires inquiry into ‘the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's failure to raise the issue earlier,' and is similar to the inquiry about whether a federal prisoner who moves to vacate his sentence could have discovered earlier, through the exercise of due diligence, the facts supporting his motion.” Gonzalez v. United States, 981 F.3d 845, 850 (11th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted).

Petitioner explains that he discovered the remedy of coram nobis in October 2019. Dkt. 20 at 5. He further explains that, in February 2020, before he filed his coram nobis petition, a company which purchased land from him sued him in a quiet title action. Dkt. 20 at 5-6. He contends that the quiet title action arose from the IRS's interference in the sale of the property. Dkt. 20 at 5-6. He asserts that he could not have raised his coram nobis claims earlier because he devoted his time to the quiet title action and was unable to investigate “the extremely complex IRS scheme to defraud [him].” Dkt. 20 at 6, 10.[2]

Petitioner fails to present a valid reason for his delay in raising his claims. The jury found him guilty in 2013, and Petitioner contends that the IRS falsified records on January 21, 2014, and February 10, 2014. Crim. Dkt. 93; Dkt. 20 at 5. He further admits that he discovered the falsified documents on December 29, 2016. Dkt. 20 at 5. Yet he waited until May 5, 2021 to file his coram nobis petition. Dkt. 1. Neither his lack of knowledge of coram nobis relief nor his preoccupation with his quiet title litigation provides sound reasons for his failure to diligently pursue his claims. Consequently, Petitioner's unreasonable four-and-a-half-year delay bars relief. Gonzalez, 981 F.3d at 853 ([P]rocedural ignorance' is not ‘an excuse for prolonged inattention' when the law calls for diligence.”) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295, 311 (2005)) (affirming the denial of a coram nobis petition filed after twenty-month delay without good reason); Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157, 159-60 (3d Cir. 2012) (same as to a four-year delay); United States v. Delhorno, 915 F.3d 449, 455 (7th Cir. 2019) (same as to five-year delay).

Merits

Even if Petitioner timely raised the claims, the claims are meritless. He contends that the IRS falsified the records “to justify instituting the criminal case against [him], ” Dkt. 20 at 5, that the prosecutor failed to disclose the falsified records, which he describes as “newly discovered evidence, ” to the grand jury and to him before trial, Dkt. 20 at 6-7, and that he had no duty to file a tax return because of the comments by the commissioners and the IRS's “scheme to defraud.” Dkt. 20 at 9-10. He asserts that falsified records “resulted in criminal convictions against [him], ” Dkt. 20 at 1, and contends that [he] was convicted by fraud.” Dkt. 20 at 11.

To the extent that Petitioner asserts that the IRS records demonstrate his innocence, [a] claim of newly discovered evidence relevant only to the guilt or innocence of the petitioner is not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.” Moody, 874 F.2d at 1577.

To the extent that Petitioner asserts that the prosecutor committed fraud by failing to disclose to the grand jury the “fraudulent” IRS documents and that the prosecutor violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by not disclosing the “fraudulent” IRS documents before trial, the record refutes the claim. Brady requires Mr. Darst to demonstrate: (1) the government possessed evidence favorable to him; (2) he did not possess the evidence and could not obtain the evidence with any reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) had the evidence been disclosed to him, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” United States v. Melgen, 967 F.3d 1250, 1264 (11th Cir. 2020).

The jury found Petitioner guilty in 2013, and Petitioner contends that the IRS falsified records on January 21, 2014, and February 10, 2014. Crim. Dkt. 93; Dkt. 20 at 5. The prosecutor could not have suppressed the IRS documents before trial because IRS generated the documents after trial. Also his [c]onviction beyond a reasonable doubt without the use of the tainted testimony or alleged misconduct at trial makes it highly improbable that the grand jury indictment was based on insufficient probable cause.” United States v. Garate-Vergara, 942 F.2d 1543, 1550 (11th Cir. 1991). Accord Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 119 (1975) ([I]llegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction.”).

Petitioner further fails to demonstrate either that IRS records were favorable to him or that, had the IRS records been disclosed to him, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. Melgen, 967 F.3d at 1264. The prosecution charged him with corruptly interfering with Internal Revenue Laws in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), and failing to file a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Crim. Dkt. 1. The jury found that he failed to file a tax return in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 and further found that he corruptly interfered with Internal Revenue Laws by submitting nine separate documents to the IRS. Crim. Dkt. 93 at 2-4. Those documents included fraudulent money orders purportedly worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, a letter encouraging an individual to not comply with a valid IRS notice of levy, and letters threatening an IRS agent and an IRS officer with civil and criminal penalties for purported misconduct. Crim. Dkt. 93 at 2-3.

At the time of Petitioner's trial, corruptly interfering with Internal Revenue Laws required proof “that the defendant (1) ‘knowingly tried to obstruct or impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws,' and (2) ‘did so corruptly.' United States v Graham, 981 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020).[3] Failing to file a tax return required proof that Mr. Darst failed to pay taxes when due and willfully failed to do...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT