Hazley v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21 C 4268 |
| Parties | JOSEPH HAZLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
On October 1, 2021, petitioner Joseph Hazley, by counsel, filed an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.[1] For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Hazley's § 2255 motion and declines to certify any issues for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
On March 6, 2019, a jury convicted Hazley of six sex-trafficking counts related to his recruitment of two young women and a minor girl into prostitution. See 18 U.S.C §§ 1591(a)-(c), 1594(c), 2421(a). The jury however, acquitted Hazley on one count of sex-trafficking arising from the November 2016 transportation of two victims from Ohio to Illinois due in large part to defense counsel's cross-examination of one of the victims. The Court sentenced Hazley to a within-guidelines sentence of 384 months in prison followed by 7 years of supervised release. Hazley appealed his conviction and sentence, after which his appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw asserting that any appeal was frivolous pursuant to Ander's v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hazley did not respond to counsel's Anders motion under Seventh Circuit Rule 51(b). On May 12, 2020, the Seventh Circuit granted appellate counsel's Anders motion and dismissed Hazley's appeal.
The charges in the superseding indictment arose after Hazley recruited two 18-year-old women and a 16-year-old girl into prostitution, advertised them for commercial sex on Backpage.com, escorted them to commercial sex appointments and transported one of them from Illinois to Indiana several times for commercial sex. The government presented overwhelming evidence of Hazley's guilt of the six sex-trafficking counts, including eyewitness testimony, numerous text messages, Facebook messaging between Hazley and his victims, and forensic evidence gleaned from Hazley's computer. Two of Hazley's victims testified at trial pursuant to grants of immunity. Other trial witnesses included Hazley's co-defendant, FBI agents, a Markham, Illinois police officer, Hazley's friend Raphael McClinton, and an expert in the dynamics of commercial sex exploitation, among other witnesses.
Turning to the trial evidence, Hazley's victim “Shiane” testified that Hazley was her pimp and that she began working for him in April 2016. She believed that she was in a relationship with Hazley, who treated her like she was his girlfriend. She had moved into Hazley's house and took care of his children. After she moved in with Hazley, Hazley told her that money was tight and that she needed to work as an escort. She observed Hazley posting ads on Backpage offering her for commercial sex acts. After Hazley posted the ads, commercial sex customers called Shiane's phone and she would set up appointments. Hazley would then drive her to locations in Illinois and Indiana, where he sat outside and waited for her. According to Shiane, Hazley took her on 10 or more prostitution “dates” a day. Shiane also testified that Hazley did not allow her to leave his house and at one point controlled her money.
In November 2016, Shiane's friend “Gina” called her and asked Shiane to pick her up in Youngstown, Ohio. Shiane and Hazley then drove to Youngstown and returned to Chicago with Gina. Once back in Chicago, both Shiane and Gina worked for Hazley as prostitutes. Hazley posted Backpage advertising Shiane and Gina for commercial sex.
After Gina moved out of Hazley's house, 16-year-old “Desiree” moved in. Shiane and Desiree lived together at Hazley's house in early December 2016, at which time Hazley facilitated Desiree's commercial sex acts, including advertising her services on Backpage. Hazley instructed Shiane to teach Desiree how to answer the phone and talk to commercial sex customers. Shiane observed Hazley take Desiree on five to six “dates” each day. Shiane eventually left Hazley's house because she was jealous of Desiree. In addition, Hazley's co-defendant, Charles McFee, testified about Hazley's involvement with Desiree after McFee had recruited her for Hazley.
On December 24, 2016, Desiree was murdered in Markham, Illinois, while Hazley was in a car outside of the property waiting for her. Cristina Rosales, who lived at the property where Desiree's body was found, testified Hazley knocked on her door looking for Desiree, after which Rosales' husband opened the garage and they discovered Desiree's body. Cristina Rosales stated Hazley then repeatedly said she was only 18-years-old. Rosales called 911 and told Hazley that the police did not want him to leave the scene. On cross-examination of Rosales, defense counsel established that Hazley had not left the scene. Hazley was not charged with Desiree's murder, instead, Cristina Rosales' husband, Antonio Rosales, was. Meanwhile, after Desiree died, Hazley contacted Shiane to come back to work telling her that money was getting tight. She did not return.
In June 2017, the FBI executed a search warrant of Hazley's house and recovered a computer. A forensic review of the computer revealed links to Backpage and ads featuring Desiree. The FBI also conducted a forensic analysis of Desiree's phone. The analysis showed text messages between Desiree and Backpage customers, along with a photo of Desiree that she had sent to Hazley. Hazley was arrested on June 21, 2017, and proceeded to trial in February 2019.
“Section 2255 provides relief for a federal prisoner if their sentence ‘was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or [if] the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or [if] the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law.'” Harris v. United States, 13 F.4th 623, 627 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)). “Relief under [§ 2255] is available only in extraordinary situations, such as an error of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude or where a fundamental defect has occurred which results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Blake v. United States, 723 F.3d 870, 878-79 (7th Cir. 2013). Because Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims often involve evidence outside of the trial record, such claims may be brought for the first time in a § 2255 motion. United States v. Cates, 950 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2020). Otherwise, a “claim not raised on direct appeal generally may not be raised for the first time on collateral review and amounts to procedural default.” White v. United States, 8 F.4th 547, 554 (7th Cir. 2021). To overcome procedural default, a petitioner must show either cause for the default and actual prejudice, or that there has been a fundamental miscarriage of justice, namely, that he is actually innocent. See id.; Lund v. United States, 913 F.3d 665, 667 (7th Cir. 2019).
Hazley makes several arguments why his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel that the Court addresses in turn. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, Hazley must establish: (1) his trial attorney's performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” informed by “prevailing professional norms” and (2) “but for counsel's unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under the Strickland performance prong, there is a strong presumption “that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Lumpkin v. Hermans, 33 F.4th 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Under the Strickland prejudice prong, it is not enough “to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding,” rather, Hazley must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 693, 695. If Hazley fails to make a proper showing under one of the Strickland prongs, the Court need not consider the other. Id. at 697.
Hazley first argues he “was denied the right to a fair trial in violation of the sixth and fourth amendments when trial counsel entirely failed to subject the prosecution's case to adversarial testing.” Instead of discussing Strickland, Hazley argues this case falls under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). “ Cronic recognized a narrow exception to Strickland's holding” by instructing “that a presumption of prejudice would be in order in ‘circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.'” FOorida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190125 S.Ct. 551, 562, 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004) (citation omitted). Under Cronic, prejudice may be presumed if: (1) the accused is denied the presence of counsel at a critical stage in proceedings; (2) counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing; or (3) counsel is called upon to render assistance under circumstances where competent counsel very likely could not. Lewis v. Zatecky, 993 F.3d 994, 1101 (7th Cir. 2021). In discussing Cronic, the Seventh Circuit has stated “[a]lthough such a total breakdown is rare, the Court has never wavered from the recognition that it can occur.” Id. at 997.
Hazley has failed to establish Cronic's narrow exception to Strickland because, assessing counsel's advocacy as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial