Hayes v. United States
| Decision Date | 06 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:09-CV-116 CAS,4:09-CV-116 CAS |
| Parties | JAMES GLENN HAYES, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court on federal prisoner James Glenn Hayes's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence ("Motion to Vacate"). The government has filed its response, and movant filed a traverse. This matter is fully briefed and ready for decision. For the following reasons, movant's motion will be denied.
On or about August 29, 2005, movant was charged by way of complaint with seven counts, each of which related to a controlled substance or firearms related offense. Following the entry of the complaint, Douglas A. Forsyth, Esq., entered his appearance on movant's behalf. On September 15, 2005, a grand jury issued an indictment against movant and seven co-defendants. Movant was arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig1 on October 3, 2005. That same day, the government provided discovery to Mr. Forsyth and filed a Disclosure of Arguably Suppressible Evidence, in which it outlined the evidence it intended to use in the event of trial. On October 10, 2005, Mr. Forsyth filed a Request for Discovery. Mr. Forsyth never filed a motion fordiscovery or a motion to compel. The government did provide additional discovery to Mr. Forsyth on October 12, 2005.
On October 15, 2005, movant filed a waiver of pretrial motions. On November 14, 2005, movant appeared before then Magistrate Judge Audrey Fleissig. At the hearing, Judge Fleissig engaged movant in a length colloquy regarding his decision to waive pretrial motions. Hearing Transcript at 5-8. Following the colloquy, Judge Fleissig asked movant whether he wished to waive his right to filed pretrial motions, and movant answered in the affirmative. Id. at 8. At the hearing, Judge Fleissig also asked movant's attorney whether the government had "produced all discovery it is required to produce to these defendants in this matter?" Id. at 3. Mr. Forsyth responded it had, and that he had had the opportunity to review the discovery. Id.
In December 2005, the parties reached a plea agreement under which movant agreed to plead guilty as to Counts I and V of the indictment, and the government agreed to dismiss Counts II, IV, VI, VII, and VIII. Movant signed a written Plea Agreement, Guidelines Recommendations and Stipulations ("Plea Agreement"). Although the parties were able to reach an agreement as to the charges, they were unable to reach an agreement as to the proper application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G." or "Guidelines"). Plea Agreement at 2. They did agree that the 2004 version of the Guidelines Manual applied, and that movant should receive a three-level deduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to Section 3E1.1. The parties did not agree as to the base-level offense, specific offense characteristics, estimated total offense level, or movant's criminal history. It is stated in the Plea Agreement that Id. at 7-8.
As for the penalties, it states in the Plea Agreement as to Count I that "defendant fully understands that the maximum possible penalty provided by law for the crime to which defendant is pleading guilty is imprisonment of not more than life . . . and requires a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years." Id. at 12. As for Count V, the Plea Agreement states that "defendant fully understands that the maximum possible penalty provided by law for the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty is imprisonment of not more than 20 years." Id.
With regard to representation, movant agreed that he was "fully satisfied with the representation received from defense counsel," and that he had "reviewed the government's evidence and discussed the government's case and all possible defenses and defense witnesses with defense counsel." Id. at 14-15. The Plea Agreement further states that "defense counsel completely and satisfactorily explored all areas [movant] had requested relative to the government's case and any defenses." Id. at 15. With respect to coercion, the Plea Agreement states that "[[t]his document constitutes the entire agreement between [movant] and the government and no person has, directly or indirectly, threatened or coerced [movant] to do or refrain from doing anything in connection with any aspect of this case, including entering a plea of guilty." Id. at 15.
In the Plea Agreement, movant also agreed to waive his right to file an appeal with respect to non-jurisdictional issues. Id. at 3. Movant further waived his right to contest the conviction or sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.
On December 21, 2005, movant appeared before the undersigned for a change of plea. Movant took an oath to tell the truth and was asked several questions, the purpose of which was to establish the voluntariness of his plea. Specifically, movant was asked his age, the extent of his education, whether he was under the influence of alcohol or any drug, and whether he suffered from any mental disease or defect. Hearing Transcript at 2-3. Movant gave appropriate responses to all the questions asked at the time. Movant was advised of the charges and the range of punishment, including that there was a maximum possible punishment of life imprisonment for Count I and a maximum possible punishment of 20 years imprisonment for Count V. Id. at 3-4. Movant was also informed that Count I carried a "minimum mandatory period of incarceration of not less than 10 years." Id. at 4. Movant stated under oath that he understood the charges and the range of punishment. Id. Movant was also asked whether there had been any threats or promises made in exchange for his guilty plea. Id. at 8. Counsel for the government, Mr. Forsyth, and movant all answered in the negative. Id. at 8.
Movant pleaded guilty as to Counts I and V of the indictment. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of pseudoephedrine, knowing that it would be used to manufacture a controlled substance (Count I), and one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine (Count V). See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). During the hearing, the government recited the facts in support of the plea, and movant admitted the facts were accurate. Id. at 8. Mr. Forsyth explained to the Court that movant was in agreement that the amount of methamphetamine was in excess of 500 grams, and the government responded that it remained to be seen the precise amount of drugs attributable to movant. Id. at 7. The government and movant, however, all agreed the amount was in excess of 500 grams. Id. at 7, 15.
The matter was set for sentencing and a Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") was ordered. The PSR, which was prepared on January 20, 2006, recommended that movant's base offense level was 32. The PSR recommended that six levels be added pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 2D1.1(b)(6)(C) because the offense involved the manufacture of methamphetamine and created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor. The PSR also recommended that two levels be added pursuant to Section 2D1.1(b)(1) because movant had possessed a firearm in connection with the offense, and a four-level increase pursuant to Section 3B1.1(a) because he occupied a leadership role in the criminal activity. It was also recommended that two levels be added because he recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. The PSR also recommended that movant should receive a three- level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under Section 3E1.1(a) and (b), for a total offense level of 43. In the PSR, movant's criminal history was calculated to be a category III, based upon a total of six criminal history points. The Guidelines sentencing range was calculated to be to life imprisonment. PSR at 12.
Mr. Forsyth timely objected to the PSR. He objected to the total drug quantity, the assessment of a six-level enhancement based on the finding that movant had created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor, the assessment of a two-level enhancement based on the possession of a firearm, and the four-level enhancement based on the leadership role. Mr. Forsyth argued movant's total offense level should be 29.
The government responded to defendant's objections to the PSR. The government attached to their response a report authored by Dr. John William Martyny, Associate Professor in the Division of Environmental and Occupational Heath Sciences at the National Jewish Research and MedicalCenter in Denver, Colorado. In his report, Dr. Martyny expressed his opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that movant's conduct in the offense of conviction was likely to result in significant harm to the lives of his children, including his deceased infant child, Jersie Hayes.2 Also attached to the government's response was (1) a laboratory report prepared by the Drug Enforcement Administration's North Central Laboratory in Chicago, Illinois, which revealed traces of methamphetamine on a pillow case, a can of baby formula, and a pacifier seized from movant's residence on the day Jersie Hayes died; and (2) a Medical Examiner's Report, which stated that the manner of Jersie Hayes's death was undetermined. On February 23, 2006, the government filed a witness list, which included Dr. Martyny and three other...
To continue reading
Request your trial