Godwin v. United States
| Decision Date | 26 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:15-cv-1309-J-34JBT,Case No.: 3:10-cr-276-J-34JBT |
| Parties | MAYNARD K. GODWIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Maynard K. Godwin's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Civ. Doc. 1, Motion to Vacate); (Civ. Doc. 1-3; Facts in Support) and Memorandum of Law in Support (Civ. Doc. 2; Memorandum).1 The United States has responded (Civ. Doc. 6; Response), and Godwin has replied (Civ. Doc. 9; Reply). Godwin also filed two notices of supplemental authority. (Civ. Doc. 10; First Notice of Supplemental Authority); (Civ. Doc. 12; Second Notice of Supplemental Authority). The case is ripe for a decision.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings2, the Court has considered the need for an evidentiary hearing and determines that a hearing is not necessary to resolve the merits of this action. See Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873, 877 (11th Cir. 2015) (); Patel v. United States, 252 F. App'x 970, 975 (11th Cir. 2007).3 For the reasons set forth below, Godwin's Motion to Vacate is due to be denied.
The facts of the underlying crime are thoroughly recounted in United States v. Godwin, 765 F.3d 1306, 1310-13 (11th Cir. 2014), but the Court briefly summarizes them here. Godwin was the leader of a dog tag-wearing gang named "The Guardians," which tried to model itself after the infamous "Hell's Angels" motorcycle gang. Over the course of 15 months between 2009 and 2010, the group terrorized people in the area of Jacksonville, Florida by committing criminal acts including armed bank robberies, home invasion robberies, fencing stolen items, stockpiling firearms and body armor, selling drugs, and beating one man, Dillon Burkhalter, to within an inch of his life. As the gang's leader, Godwin directed its members to commit several of these crimes, including the vicious attack on Burkhalter.
Law enforcement originally arrested Godwin on November 18, 2010, based on a complaint alleging that he had distributed cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (Case No. 3:10-cr-305-J-34MCR, Doc. 1, Doc. 3). A grand jury indicted Godwin on that same charge on December 15, 2010. (Id., Doc. 17). A grand jury later returned a superseding indictment on February 24, 2011, which added Kenneth Deshawn Anderson,Jr. as a co-defendant (Id., Doc. 23). However, on June 20, 2011, the United States moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, and the Court granted the motion. (Id., Doc. 63, Doc. 65).
On April 20, 2011, while the superseding indictment in Case No. 3:10-cr-305 was still pending, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Godwin and others in the instant criminal case, charging the defendants in 22 counts, including one count of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). (Crim. Doc. 31; Superseding Indictment).4 Six months later, a grand jury returned the Second Superseding Indictment, which charged Godwin and others with one count of violating RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Count One) and one count of conspiracy to violate RICO under § 1962(d) (Count Two). (Crim. Doc. 138; Second Superseding Indictment); (Crim. Doc. 234; Corrected Second Superseding Indictment).5 The grand jury also charged Godwin with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Four). Corrected Second Superseding Indictment at 33-34.
Godwin proceeded to a jury trial on the Corrected Second Superseding Indictment with his Court-appointed lawyer, James Hernandez.6 Following a trial that lasted a little over three weeks, the jury found Godwin guilty of the substantive RICO offense and of conspiracy to violate RICO (Counts One and Two). (Crim. Doc. 256; Jury Verdict).However, the jury acquitted Godwin of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count Four). Id. In the course of finding Godwin guilty of violating RICO, the jury determined that he committed nine racketeering acts, including the extortion of Burkhalter, numerous instances of distributing or conspiring to distribute cocaine and oxycodone, and transferring stolen property. Id. The Court sentenced Godwin to a term of 360 months in prison, consisting of consecutive terms of 240 months in prison as to Count One and 120 months in prison as to Count Two. (Crim. Doc. 364; Judgment).
Represented by the same counsel, Godwin appealed his conviction and sentence. Godwin argued that the Court erred by dismissing one of the jurors, Casey Andeer, before the start of the trial and by dismissing a second juror - Juror 10 - during deliberations. Godwin, 765 F.3d at 1316. The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments. As to Andeer, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Court was within its discretion to dismiss her as a juror because she would have been distracted by childcare obligations. Id. at 1316-18.7 As to Juror 10, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Court had good cause to dismiss the juror because the other jurors unanimously identified Juror 10 as refusing to follow the Court's instructions. Id. at 1318-19. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Godwin's conviction and sentence. Id. at 1324.
Godwin petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, but the Supreme Court denied the petition on November 10, 2014. Godwin v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 491 (2014). Less than a year later, Godwin timely filed the instant Motion to Vacate.
Godwin raises four grounds for relief in his Motion to Vacate. First, Godwin contends that trial counsel gave ineffective assistance by failing to object to (by the Court's count) three alleged violations of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.8 Second, Godwin contends that his sentence is erroneous in light of Amendment 790, a clarifying amendment to § 1B1.3 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") regarding "relevant conduct," which became effective about a year after Godwin's conviction and sentence became final. Third, Godwin claims that counsel gave ineffective assistance by failing to object to the imposition of consecutive sentences. Fourth, Godwin argues that counsel gave ineffective assistance at sentencing and on appeal by failing to raise an alleged error under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
As noted above, Godwin also filed two notices of supplemental authority. In the First Notice, Godwin alerted the Court to United States v. Barona-Bravo, 685 F. App'x 761 (11th Cir. 2017). In Barona-Bravo, the Eleventh Circuit held that Amendment 790 applied retroactively on direct appeal and remanded the case to the district court to make the appropriate findings regarding the defendants' relevant conduct. In the Second Notice, Godwin alerted the Court to Nelson v. Colorado, — U.S. —, 137 S. Ct. 1249, 197 L.Ed.2d 611 (2017). In Nelson, the Supreme Court held that Colorado statutes violated due processby requiring defendants whose convictions have been reversed or vacated to prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to obtain the refund of costs, fees, and restitution paid pursuant to the invalid conviction.
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, a person in federal custody may move to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Section 2255 permits such collateral challenges on four specific grounds: (1) the imposed sentence was in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2) the court did not have jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the imposed sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the imposed sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C §2255(a) (2008). Only jurisdictional claims, constitutional claims, and claims of error that are so fundamentally defective as to cause a complete miscarriage of justice will warrant relief through collateral attack. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184-86 (1979). A petitioner's challenge to his sentence based on a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is normally considered in a collateral attack. United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1534 n. 11 (11th Cir. 1992).
As with any Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a § 2255 petitioner must demonstrate both: (1) that his counsel's conduct amounted to constitutionally deficient performance, and (2) that his counsel's deficient performance sufficiently prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Weeks v. Jones, 26 F.3d 1030, 1036 (11th Cir. 1994). In determining whether the petitioner has satisfied the first requirement, i.e. that counsel performed deficiently, the Court adheres to the standard of reasonably effective assistance. Weeks, 26 F.3d at 1036. Thepetitioner must show, in light of all the circumstances, that counsel's performance fell outside the "wide range of professionally competent assistance." Id. To satisfy the second requirement, that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 1036-37 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). In determining whether a petitioner has met the two prongs of deficient performance and prejudice, the Court considers the totality of the evidence. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. However, because both prongs are necessary, "there is no reason...
To continue reading
Request your trial