Fields v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10-CIV-115-RAW |
| Parties | EDWARD LEON FIELDS, Petitioner/Defendant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent/Plaintiff. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
This is a proceeding initiated, on April 6, 2010, by the above-named petitioner's filing of a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence.1 The motion to vacate conviction and sentence is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The government has filed a response by and through the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On November 15, 2010, Petitioner filed his reply.
On August 1, 2003, Petitioner was named in a six-count indictment. The indictment charged Petitioner with Counts 1 and 3: First Degree Murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a) and (b), 7(3) and 13; Counts 2 and 4, Use of a Firearm in a Federal Crime ofViolence Causing the Death of a Person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), (d), (j), 7(3) and 13; Count 5, Assimilative Crime - Robbery with a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7(3) and 13; and Count 6, Assimilative Crime - Burglary of an Automobile, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7(3) and 13. On March 15, 2004, the government gave notice of its intention to seek the death penalty in the event of a conviction on Counts 1 and/or 3.
On June 30, 2005, Petitioner appeared before this court and waived jury trial as to stage one only and entered pleas of guilty to all of the six counts contained in the indictment. Thereafter, on July 5, 2005, this court began death penalty qualification of potential jurors. On July 13, 2005, the second stage jury trial was commenced. On July 22, 2005, the jury unanimously returned a verdict of death. Cr. Dkt. # 228.
On November 8, 2005, the court sentenced Petitioner to death on Counts 1 and 3; 405 months on Counts 2 and 4, to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed; 405 months on Count 5; and 84 months on Count 6. Additionally, in the event of subsequent release, Petitioner was ordered to serve 36 months of supervised release. Petitioner was further ordered to pay restitution in the sum of $15,323.84 and a $100 special assessment on each count, for a total special assessment of $600. The judgment and commitment was filed of record on November 15, 2005.
Following his conviction, Petitioner filed a direct appeal. The following issues were raised on appeal:
After considering each of these issues, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction. United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 1905, 173 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2009).2
On April 6, 2010, Petitioner filed his Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. # 1). As previously indicated, Petitioner raised nine (9) grounds for relief. Seven of those grounds contain Sixth Amendment claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, he claims the Eighth Amendment was violated because the jury did notfind as mitigating factors any of the uncontested mental health-related mitigating factors presented; the Eighth Amendment and international law bar his execution because he is not competent to be executed and the death penalty is precluded due to his deteriorating mental health; prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of due process and a fair trial; his Due Process rights were violated because the government withheld exculpatory evidence; cumulative errors deprived him of Due Process and a reliable sentencing hearing; and the manner of Petitioner's death, if carried out, would violate the Eighth Amendment.
Following extensive discovery of the issues herein, the record was expanded on October 13, 2015, with the filing by Petitioner of a document styled: "Grounds in Support of Amended Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence by a person in federal custody" (Dkt. # 106)3 and an Amended Appendix in support thereof consisting of thirty-six (36) exhibits (Dkt. #s 106-1 & 106-2). Thereafter, the record was further expanded on October 15, 2015, when the government filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 110) containing thirty-nine (39) new exhibits. On January 6, 2016, Petitioner filed his response adding thirteen (13) additional exhibits. Finally, on February 2, 2016, the government filed a reply (Dkt. # 122) containing eight (8) more exhibits. This Court has reviewed the relevant trial court records associated with Case No. CR-03-73-RAW, including pleadings, pretrial and trial transcripts as well as all of the pleadings and exhibits filed herein.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA" or the "Act") delineates the circumstances under which a federal court may grant collateral relief. Title 28, section 2255 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A prisoner seeking post-conviction relief under this statute must allege as a basis for relief: (1) lack of jurisdiction by the court entering judgment; (2) an error of constitutional magnitude; (3) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (4) an error of law or fact where the claimed error constitutes "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2240, 60 L.Ed.2d 805 (1979).
Section 2255 is not a substitute for an appeal and is not available to test the legality of matters which should have been challenged on appeal. United States v. Khan, 835 F.2d 749, 753 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1222 (1988). Failure to raise an issue on direct appeal bars the movant/defendant from raising such an issue in a § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence unless he can show "both good cause for failing to raise the issue earlier, and that the court's failure to consider the claim would result in actual prejudice to his defense, . . ." Id. "An error of law [or fact] 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. Blackwell, 127 F.3d 947, 954 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
In United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 1995), the Tenth Circuit held claims of constitutionally ineffective counsel should be brought on collateral review. Consequently, no procedural bar will apply to ineffective assistance of counsel claims which could have been brought on direct appeal but are raised in post-conviction proceedings. A petitioner may also raise substantive claims which were not presented on direct appeal if he can establish cause for his procedural default by showing he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
A court considering a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise an issue is required to look to the merits of the omitted issue. Where the omitted issues are meritless, counsel's failure to raise it on appeal does not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.2d 1206, 1221 (10th Cir. 1999). See also, Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288, 120 S.Ct. 746, 765, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000). Additionally, where claims have been raised and rejected on direct appeal, they can not be relitigated in a § 2255 motion. United States v. Warner, 23 F.3d 287, 291 (10th Cir. 1994).
On appeal the Tenth Circuit accurately set forth the facts as relayed to the jury in this case. Fields, 516 F.3d, at pp. 927-928. Therefore, this court will not recite them here. The court will, however, discuss various facts as they become relevant to a particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial