Goldsberry v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:19-cv-00950-AGF
• Parties: JODY GOLDSBERRY, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

JODY GOLDSBERRY, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Case No. 4:19-cv-00950-AGF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

April 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Movant Jody Goldsberry's motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. On January 28, 2016, Goldsberry entered into an open plea of guilty. The Court accepted Goldsberry's plea, and on November 22, 2016, sentenced Goldsberry to a Guideline sentence of 120 months.

In his pro se motion under § 2255, Goldsberry asserts the following claims: (1) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Court transcripts as inaccurate or incorrect; (2) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Court sentencing Movant as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e); (3) the Court erred when it failed to conduct a hearing on Goldsberry's pro se objections to the presentence investigation report and make findings regarding certain facts in support thereof; (4) Goldsberry's second guilty plea was involuntary and the result of coercion; (5) actual innocence; (6) defense counsel was ineffective "during the course of several proceedings"; and (7) the Court erred in its calculation of Goldsberry's total offense level. As the record before the Court conclusively demonstrates that Movant is not entitled to relief, the Court will deny Movant's motion without a hearing.

BACKGROUND

Criminal Proceedings

On January 29, 2013, law enforcement officers responded to 911 calls at the residence of Goldsberry's mother, who had been shot in the left arm. Goldsberry was not present when the officers arrived at the house, but they suspected Goldsberry had fired the .45 caliber gun that injured her.

During a search of the residence, officers located six firearms,¹ several boxes of ammunition, blood spatter in the kitchen, and a spent .45 caliber shell on the kitchen floor. On March 27, 2014, a federal grand jury charged Goldsberry with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Goldsberry, 4:14-cr-00091-AGF ("criminal case"), Crim. ECF No. 1.² Goldsberry was initially represented by the Office of the Federal Public Defender until approximately August 15, 2014, when Goldsberry retained Scott Rosenblum, Adam Fein, and Michael Mettis to represent him. Crim. ECF No. 34, 35, 36,37. The Court thereafter continued the trial setting several times, on motion of Goldsberry, and ultimately set the case for trial on April 27, 2015.

The Court held a pretrial conference on April 17, 2015, during which the Court addressed the Government's pending motions in limine and conducted a Frye hearing.³ Crim. ECF No. 64. In connection with the motions related to the admissibility of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. Rules 404(b) and 609, there was extensive discussion of Goldsberry's prior felony convictions, including his conviction in 2007 for possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated. Crim. ECF No. 66; Pretrial Conference Transcript, Crim. ECF No. 83 at 43-44, 57-58, 76-78. In connection with the Frye hearing, the Government advised the Court of two plea offers communicated to Goldsberry's attorneys. In response, Goldsberry stated that he had reviewed and rejected the first offer, but that he was unaware of the second offer. As a result, the Court granted Goldsberry time to confer with his attorney. After conferring with counsel, Goldsberry indicated he had no further questions about the offer made by the Government. He further represented that he had the opportunity to discuss the evidence against him with counsel, that he was satisfied with counsel's representation, and that he understood it was his decision as to whether to accept the offer. Goldsberry thereafter rejected theGovernment's second plea offer. Before the pretrial conference concluded, Goldsberry accused the Government's attorney of portraying himself as Goldsberry's attorney to Goldsberry's aunt and neighbors the day before the hearing. The Court told Goldsberry to discuss the matter with his counsel, who could file a motion to seek some relief if counsel believed it was warranted. Pretrial Conference Transcript, Crim. ECF No. 83.

On April 24, 2015, the Friday before the trial, Goldsberry entered a plea of guilty to the single-count indictment ("First Guilty Plea"). Crim. ECF No. 68, 69. At the change of plea hearing, Goldsberry, while under oath, confirmed he had discussed the case, the evidence, and the plea agreement with defense counsel; he was satisfied with defense counsel's representation; there was nothing defense counsel should have done or that he requested them to do that they did not do; and that defense counsel had answered all of his questions. Change of Plea Hearing Transcript, Crim. ECF No. 84 at 9-12, 16-17. The Court on several occasions advised Goldsberry that it would not accept a plea of guilty based on facts that Goldsberry did not believe were true. However, Goldsberry confirmed that there was nothing in the plea agreement, including the Stipulation of Facts, with which he disagreed. Goldsberry also confirmed that no one had threatened, forced, or promised him anything to induce his plea of guilty. The Court accepted the plea, finding it contained a factual basis and was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

On May 20, 2015, Goldsberry filed a pro se motion seeking to withdraw his plea of guilty, alleging actual innocence and that his counsel threatened him into entering the plea. On June 15, 2015, the Court conducted an ex parte discussion with Goldsberry andhis counsel. It then granted Goldsberry's motion requesting that counsel be permitted to withdraw from representation and appointed Henry Miller to represent Goldsberry.

On August 11, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Goldsberry's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Crim. ECF No. 85. At the parties' request, the Court continued the hearing so that they could determine what, if any, effect the intervening decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)⁴ would have on Goldsberry's classification as an armed career criminal. Thereafter, on August 21, 2015, the Court permitted Goldsberry to withdraw his plea of guilty and reset the case for trial, despite its finding that nothing in the record suggested that defense counsel had been ineffective or had forced Goldsberry to enter a plea of guilty. Crim. ECF No. 89. The case was rescheduled for trial on October 28, 2016, but on Goldsberry's motion was thereafter continued to February 1, 2016. Crim ECF Nos. 89, 92.⁵

On January 28, 2016, the Court held a final pretrial conference. Crim ECF No. 107. Goldsberry initially indicated that he did not wish to plead guilty. The Court then proceeded with the pretrial conference and asked Goldsberry's appointed counsel, Mr. Miller, whether he intended to call witnesses at trial. Mr. Miller advised the Court that Lillian Goldsberry, Goldsberry's mother, was a necessary witness. However, Mr. Millerstated that Ms. Goldsberry may be scheduled for surgery on the Wednesday of trial. The following discussion ensued:

THE COURT: Do we know if there's any reason that it has to be on Wednesday of next week instead of Thursday or Friday of next week?

MR. MILLER: I do not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. I would like you to have your investigator explore that issue, and assuming for the moment that it must be on Wednesday of next week, how might we handle this? Can we take Lillian Goldsberry out of order?

AUSA STEVENS: Certainly, Judge, I offered that to Mr. Miller as soon as he learned about this this morning, informed me of it, and I told him if we need to take her out of order during the Government's case, or we need to maybe do her somewhat later than he would otherwise do in his order of witnesses, obviously that would be fine too. I guess we just need to see how it plays out, but I understand Mr. Miller's position here and I'm perfectly willing to be flexible with that.

THE COURT: I don't know that this procedure is—if she has it on Wednesday, I don't know if that leaves her free to come to court on Thursday.

MR. MILLER: Nor do I, Your Honor. My hope would be that we could do it Monday or Tuesday. I will find out exactly what's going on and I will keep the Court informed.

THE COURT: Monday is tough because we are just going to be picking our jury, doing our opening statements. I mean she's kind of a tough witness to try to get on Monday, but we certainly could put her on on Tuesday.

MR. MILLER: Sounds good, Your Honor, thank you.

THE COURT: So why don't we check that out and see if we can't get that arranged, unless what she tells us is either, oh, Icould go ahead and have it done on Friday or says, yes, I'm having a procedure on Wednesday, but I'll be perfectly fine on Thursday. Now, that always leaves us open to the risk that she thinks that, but it's not in fact true and that endangers, you know, that is kind of a risky course. Mr. Goldsberry has something to say. Would you like to chat with him, Mr. Miller. Mr. Goldsberry why don't you wait a minute and let your attorney come over and talk to you and then we'll go from there.

Pretrial Conference and Change of Plea Hearing Transcript I, Crim. ECF No. 209 at 6-8. Goldsberry then indicated that his mother's surgery may take place on Tuesday. After determining that her testimony would take 60 - 90 minutes, the Court indicated that "if we had to put her on on Monday, we would, and everybody would need to keep [their] examination as tight as you possibly can," unless Ms. Goldsberry advised that she would be "perfectly capable of showing up for Court on Wednesday or Thursday." Id. at 9.

Thereafter, the Court proceeded to discuss other pretrial matters, including the parties' plans to enter into an Old Chief stipulation with respect to Goldsberry's status as a convicted felon. The Court also...