Haji-Mohamed v. United States

• Decision Date: 27 July 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-01052,Crim. No. 3:15-cr-00088-2
• Citation: Haji-Mohamed v. United States, 551 F.Supp.3d 823 (M.D. Tenn. 2021)
• Parties: Aweis HAJI-MOHAMED, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

551 F.Supp.3d 823

Aweis HAJI-MOHAMED, Petitioner,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

No. 3:20-cv-01052

Crim. No. 3:15-cr-00088-2

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed July 27, 2021

Michael C. Holley, Federal Public Defender's Office, Nashville, TN, for Petitioner.

Brent Adams Hannafan, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philip H. Wehby, Office of the United States Attorney, Nashville, TN, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Serving a 35 year sentence pursuant to a Rule 11(c) agreement with the Government, Aweis Haji-Mohamed has filed a Motion (Doc. No. 1) and Supplemental Motion (Doc. No. 9-1) to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence in accordance 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Both motions have been fully briefed by the parties (Doc. Nos. 1, 9-1, 14, 18), and both will be denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Haji-Mohamed's prison sentence was the result of his role in a series of crimes committed in and around public housing developments in Nashville, Tennessee. More specifically, Haji-Mohamed was named in 19 of the 39 counts contained in a Third Superseding Indictment returned against him and three others on February 28, 2018.

Haji-Mohamed's alleged crimes included three counts each of (1) conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robbery; (2) Hobbs Act or attempted Hobbs Act robbery; and (3) using carrying, brandishing and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He was also charged with six counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and two counts each of stealing a firearm and possessing a stolen firearm. Even the sheer number and descriptions of those crimes fails to capture the violence and havoc he reaped during the first three months of 2015, particularly on those in and around the Tony Sudekum and J.C. Napier housing developments in historic South Nashville. Nor does it depict the brazenness and callousness of some of his acts.

The crimes were set out in detail by the Government during Haji-Mohamed's change of plea hearing on April 6, 2018. Those facts, agreed to by Haji-Mohamed during the hearing, generally entail three armed robberies, a theft, shots being fired with abandon, and a cold-blooded murder.

First, on January 10, 2015, Haji-Mohammed, armed with a loaded Beretta .40 semi-automatic pistol, robbed Chris Smith, a street level cocaine dealer, at the Tony Sudekum homes. During the course of the robbery (in which co-defendant Charles Braden participated), Smith's stepson (a juvenile) came outside his residence, whereupon Haji-Mohammed shot at the stepson. Fortunately, the bullet missed, but hit the bricks by the doorway and was later recovered by the police.

Second, and also on January 10, 2018, Haji-Mohammed and Ernest Eddie, robbed Isaiah Starks, another cocaine dealer, at the Tony Sudekum homes.¹ Starks was sitting in the driver seat of the car when Haji-Mohamed armed with the Beretta approach him, and Eddie went to the passenger side where he displayed a Ruger P94 pistol. After announcing the robbery and demanding everything Starks had, Haji-Mohammed fired his pistol into the pavement to show he was serious. Starks turned over a small amount of cash, but kept the drugs and money he had secreted in his clothing. Haji-Mohamed and Eddie then fled the area. Thereafter, Haji-Mohamed made several statements indicating that he wanted to kill Starks.

Third, and less than two weeks later, Haji-Mohamed and Marquis Brandon, another co-defendant, committed an armed robbery of the Cricket Wireless Store located at 13 Lafayette Street, just across the street from the JC Napier homes. In the early afternoon of January 22, 2015, Haji-Mohamed and Brandon entered the Cricket store wearing hooded sweatshirts in an effort to partially cover their faces. Both were armed, with Haji-Mohammed this time carrying an SCCY semiautomatic pistol. Haji-Mohammed brandished the gun at the store clerk and demanded cash from the register. The clerk was then instructed to take off his pants, so as to slow down any possible pursuit. Meanwhile, Brandon saw that the clerk had a Springfield XD .40 caliber near him. That gun and the store cash were taken by Haji-Mohamed and Brandon, who then fled the scene.

Fourth, within the next day or two, Haji-Mohammed got into an argument with Walter Butler, a Bloods gang member and erstwhile confederate, in an apartment at the CWA complex.² During the argument, Butler pointed a gun at Haji-Mohamed, but then left the apartment. Haji-Mohamed went outside and saw Thomas Pointer, who was carrying Taurus Millennium .40 caliber handgun. Haji-Mohamed asked to see the gun and Pointer obliged, presumably because both had gang affiliations. Haji-Mohamed then pointed the pistol at Pointer and refused to give it back. Upon later learning that Haji-Mohamed had absconded with a gun that was shared by various gang associates, Butler called him and demanded its return. This incensed Haji-Mohamed and he made threats against Butler and his family. Haji-Mohamed carried out those threats at approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 24, 2015, when he entered Butler's grandmother's home (which was also occupied by several juveniles, including one who was disabled), and fired his Beretta several times. Responding officers found bullet holes in the wall, floor, and above a cabinet.

Fifth, in the wee hours of the morning on February 9, 2015, Haji-Mohamed received a telephone call from a female asking him to come to the area where he had previously robbed Starks. Haji-Mohamed, along with co-defendants Brandon and Reginald Johnson, III arrived at the location. Starks was also present. At the time, Haji-Mohamed was unarmed, but Johnson told Brandon to give Haji-Mohamed the Springfield XD pistol he was carrying. Turning to Starks, Haji-Mohamed said, "bye-bye," and shot Starks in the head, killing him.

After Starks’ murder, Haji-Mohamed fled the area and traveled back and forth between Nashville and Atlanta, Georgia. On August 25, 2015, the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department caught up with him and found him hiding in the trunk of a car parked in a garage at Keisha Pollard's residence. Upon being taken into custody, Haji-Mohamed told the officers that he had been on the other side of the front door when they knocked, and he thought about shooting them. He then led officers to a Starfire, 30 MI, 9mm pistol that he had hidden in a drawer in Pollard's bedroom.

Given the scope and breadth of his crimes, Haji-Mohamed faced serious charges and the prospect of substantial time in prison. For each of the six Hobbs Act robbery related charges (Counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12), he faced a sentence of up to twenty years imprisonment; for each the three carrying and brandishing a firearm charges (Counts 5, 8, 13), he faced mandatory consecutive sentences that began at no less than five years and went to life; and for each of the ten other firearm related charges, he faced the possibility of 10 years in jail. Ultimately, he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 8 and 13, which involved carrying, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during the robbery of Starks on January 10, 2015, and to using and carrying a firearm during the armed robbery of the Cricket Store twelve days later. He also agreed to a 35-year sentence.

By any measure, 35 years in federal prison is a substantial punishment, but it paled in comparison to Haji-Mohamed's exposure were he to go to trial. Not only were 17 other counts dismissed, the State of Tennessee agreed to drop a first-degree homicide case against Haji-Mohamed that would have possibly subjected him to life in prison, which would have required him to serve at least 51 years.

Notwithstanding his receipt of what can only be described as a sweetheart deal, Haji-Mohamed filed a Motion to Set Aside his plea on February 20, 2019, almost a year after he pled guilty. This was primarily the result of the First Step Act that became effective on December 21, 2019, and reduced the mandatory minimums for certain gun charges. By Haji-Mohamed's calculations, the statutory maximum term for his counts convictions would have been 17 years, specifically 10 years for the discharge offense charged in Count 8 and a consecutive 7 years for the brandishing offense alleged in Count 13. After a hearing, during which Mohamed testified that he would not have pled guilty had he known that the statutory maximum would have only been 17 years under the First Step Act, the Court denied the motion not only because it came way too late, but also because Haji-Mohamed knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement that called for a 35 year prison sentence.

On December 9, 2019, the Court accepted the Rule 11(c) agreement of the parties, sentenced Haji-Mohamed to 210 months consecutive on Counts 8 and 13 for a total term of 420 months, and dismissed the remaining 17 counts. No appeal was filed.

II. Legal Discussion

In his motion, Haji-Mohamed raises a number of ineffective assistance of counsel claims along with a claim under United States v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019). He also asserts that his plea was involuntary and not in accordance Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. Because the alleged involuntariness of plea appears to be his primary claim and it serves as a basis for several others, the Court begins there after first setting forth the basic law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims – General Standard of Review

"[A]n ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under § 2255, whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal." Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). "Defendants claiming ineffective assistance must establish two things. First, that the attorney's performance fell below ‘prevailing professional norms.’ And second,...