Hatterer v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 4:20-cv-223,4:19-cr-66 |
| Parties | TINA HATTERER, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
TINA HATTERER, Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-223
No. 4:19-cr-66
United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
May 20, 2022
ORDER
R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
After Tina Hatterer pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, fifty grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the Court sentenced her to 120 months' imprisonment on November 7, 2019. (Doc. 454.)[1] Hatterer filed a Motion to Modify Sentence, (doc. 647), Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct her Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (doc. 693), and Motion to Challenge District Court's Ruling, (doc. 694).[2] Hatterer contends that various errors by her trial counsel and the Court plagued her guilty plea and sentence. As laid out below, Hatterer's far-reaching claims lack merit and pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings it “plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the
record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Hatterer's conviction and sentence resulted from her own admitted criminal conduct, not any errors by the Court or her counsel. Thus, for the reasons which follow, the Court DENIES her Motion to Modify Sentence, (doc. 647), Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct her Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (doc. 693), and Motion to Challenge District Court's Ruling, (doc. 694).[3] Further, the Court DENIES Hatterer's Motion to Appoint Counsel, (doc. 775), and DENIES her a Certificate of Appealability and in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.[4]
BACKGROUND
I. The Indictment Against Hatterer
On May 7, 2019, the grand jury for this District returned a thirty-count Indictment against Hatterer and seventeen codefendants. (Doc. 4.) The grand jury charged Hatterer with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), four counts of possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts Five, Six, Seven, and Eight), two counts of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Counts Nine and Thirteen), one count of possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Twelve), and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Counts Eight and Fourteen). (Id.) The Government asserted in its Penalty Certification that Hatterer faced not less than ten years' imprisonment nor more than life imprisonment as to Counts One and Twelve; not less than five years' imprisonment nor more than forty years' imprisonment as to Counts Five, Six, Seven, and Eight; not less than five years' imprisonment nor more than life imprisonment consecutive to any other sentence as to Counts Nine and Thirteen; and up to ten years' imprisonment as to Counts Eight and Fourteen. (Doc. 5.) The Court notified Hatterer of the charges against her, the maximum penalties that she could face on the charges, and her rights regarding the charges at her arraignment on May 31, 2019. (Doc. 136.)
II. Hatterer's Change of Plea
Hatterer and her attorney, Mr. Andrew S. Johnson, were able to negotiate a plea agreement with the Government whereby Hatterer agreed to plead guilty to Count One, the charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute more than fifty grams of methamphetamine, and Count Thirteen, one of the charges of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. (Doc. 283.) The plea agreement laid out Hatterer's offense conduct and the factual basis for her guilty plea. (Id. at pp. 1-3.) It also set forth the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences associated with Counts One and Thirteen. (Id. at p. 3.) The agreement contained a cooperation provision that did not require Hatterer to cooperate but made clear that if she chose to cooperate she would have to provide full, candid, and truthful cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of the crimes charged in the Indictment and any related crimes. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) Through the plea agreement, Hatterer agreed to waive her rights to appeal and to collaterally attack her convictions and sentence with limited exceptions. (Id. at pp. 9-10.) Hatterer also stated that she “has had the benefit of legal counsel in negotiating this agreement. Defendant believes that her attorney has represented her faithfully, skillfully, and diligently, and she is completely satisfied with the legal advice given and the work performed by her attorney.” (Id. at p. 11.)
On July 15, 2019, Hatterer appeared before the Court for a change of plea, or Rule 11, proceeding. (Doc. 276.) At the hearing, the Court engaged in an extensive plea colloquy with Hatterer that lasted approximately fifty minutes. (Doc. 771.) At the beginning of the hearing, the Court reviewed all the charges levied against Hatterer in the Indictment, and she confirmed that she was notified of the charges against her, the maximum penalty that she could face on those charges, and her rights regarding those charges at her arraignment. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) The
Court inquired as to whether it was Hatter's intention to plead guilty to Count One and Count Thirteen of the Indictment pursuant to her plea agreement, and she stated that it was. (Id. at p. 4.) The Court asked whether anyone was forcing or making her plead guilty at all, and she stated that no one was doing so. (Id.) The Court then explained to Hatterer that the Court wanted to be certain she understood everything that was said during the hearing and asked her to interrupt the Court and ask for clarification if she did not understand anything that the Court or anyone else said during the hearing. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) She stated that she would do so. (Id. at p. 5.) The Court also encouraged her to rely upon Mr. Johnson throughout the hearing and to let the Court know if she had a question for him or otherwise wanted to speak with him at any point, and Hatterer stated that she would. (Id. at p. 5.) The Court explained to Hatterer that her decision to plead guilty was an “extremely important” one, and the Court could only accept her decision if it was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and Hatterer affirmed that she understood. (Id.) The Court stated that it would ask her a series of questions during the hearing but that she should not take anything the Court stated as weighing in one way or the other on her decision to plead guilty as that decision was solely her choice, and Hatterer indicated that she understood. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Hatterer stated that neither her lawyer nor anyone else was making her or requiring her to plead guilty. (Id. at p. 6.)
The Court had Hatterer placed under oath before asking her a series of questions. (Id.) The Court explained to Hatterer that if she did not tell the truth after she was placed under oath that she could be prosecuted for perjury, and she indicated that she understood. (Id.)
Upon questioning by the Court, Hatterer was able to recount her personal information. She stated her age, the last four digits of her social security number, her place of birth, her marital status including how long she had been married, the age of her child, her and her child's
place of residence, Hatterer's educational background including where she had gone to school, her employment history, and her medical history. (Id. at pp. 6-9.) The Court had the following exchange with Hatterer:
Q. Are you currently or have you recently been under the care of a physician or psychologist?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have you been treated for recently?
A. PTSD, schizophrenic, bipolar with psychotic features, and manic depression.
Q. Those mental health conditions and psychological conditions that you've been treated for recently, are you suffering from any of those conditions or the acute symptoms of any of those conditions today?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are those conditions currently affecting your ability to think today as you stand here right now?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you able to understand the things that I'm telling you today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you suffering from any kind of psychological side effects of any kind today at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. Well, if you have any difficulty at any point in time during this hearing, you let me know that. Okay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you taking medication for those conditions currently?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are those medications helping keep those conditions under control?
A. I'm -- yes. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those medications making it easier for you to think today?
A. Yeah. I mean I'm just numb.
Q. Okay. Well, you say you're just numb, but are you able to think clearly today?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And are you able to make important decisions today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you feel comfortable -- the mental health state that you're being in today, would you feel comfortable making one of your most important life decisions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Because that's what you're doing today. You understand that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If at any point in time you don't feel comfortable, you feel like you don't have the mental capacity to make any decision, you let me know. Okay?
A. Yes, sir.
(Id. at pp. 9-10.) The Court then asked Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial