Hindman v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | 5:10-cv-08023-KOB-JEO,5:06-cr-00112-KOB-JEO |
| Parties | JIMMY DOYLE HINDMAN, Petitioner, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
The cases referenced above are before the court on the motion of petitioner Jimmy Doyle Hindman, to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Civ. Doc. 1, Crim. Doc. 153).1 Upon careful consideration, the court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing and that the motion is due to be denied.
On March 29, 2006, the Grand Jury issued a multi-count indictment against Hindman, charging him in Counts One and Three with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). (Crim. Doc. 2). Counts Two and Four charged him with brandishing a firearm during the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (Id.). This court determined thatHindman could not afford to retain an attorney and, therefore, appointed attorney J. Brice Callaway to represent him on April 7, 2006. (Crim. Docket Entry dated April 7, 2006).
Mr. Callaway filed several motions for disclosure of various documents and for disclosure of promises of favorable treatment to government witnesses and for prior bad act evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)) from the United States. (Crim. Docs. 6, 12 & 13). He also filed a motion for expert services to conduct DNA testing. (Crim. Doc. 17). On July 10, 2006, the petitioner requested new representation via a letter request. (Crim. Doc. 21). The magistrate judge conducted a hearing, and the court appointed Mr. David Luker to represent the petitioner. (Crim. Docket Entry dated July 24, 2006).
The government filed a superseding indictment August 1, 2006. The Grand Jury again issued a multi-count indictment charging Hindman in Count One with the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312; in Counts Two and Four with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d); and in Counts Three and Five with brandishing a firearm during the robberies, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (Crim. Doc. 24). The Government also charged defendant Billy Don Harvey in Counts Four and Five. (Id.). Harvey eventually entered a plea of guilty to the charges on September 18, 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement. (See Crim. Doc. 47; Crim. Docket Entry dated September 18, 2006).
Mr. Luker filed another motion on Hindman's behalf, seeking disclosure of prior act evidence, impeachment evidence, promises of immunity, disclosure of Jencks2 material, and statements the United States intended to attribute to Hindman. (Crim. Docs. 32-36). The court granted the motions. (Crim. Docket Entry dated August 30, 2006). Mr. Luker also filed motionsto suppress the identification of the petitioner by a witness, as well as evidence seized in a previous search. (Crim. Docs. 41 & 48). He then filed a notice of alibi as to petitioner Hindman. (Crim. Docs. 49 & 54). Finally, he filed a motion for funds to retain an investigator. (Crim. Doc. 55).
The court conducted a hearing on Hindman's motions to suppress. Thereafter, the magistrate judge recommended that the motions be denied. (Crim. Doc. 56). No objections were filed. The court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied the motions. (Crim. Docs. 60 & 61).
On October 23, 2006, Hindman filed a motion to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with brandishing firearms during the two enumerated robberies. (Crim. Doc. 57). The court denied the motion, but required the United States to file a bill of particulars specifying the dates and locations of the robberies during which the firearms were brandished. (Crim. Doc. 59). Hindman further filed a motion for issuance of subpoenas and for funds for medical and forensic experts. (Crim. Docs. 63, 65 & 81). The court granted those motions. (Crim. Docket entry dated December 12, 2006).
On November 17, 2006, Hindman requested new counsel a second time. (Crim. Doc. 71). The court granted the motion following a hearing, and appointed Mr. P. Russell Steen to represent the petitioner. (Crim. Doc. 72). Hindman filed various pro se motions and again sought new counsel. (Crim. Docs. 82-84, 87, 97). Following a hearing, the court appointed new counsel, Mr. Rick Burgess, to represent Hindman. (Crim. Docket entry dated January 23, 2007).
Trial commenced on February 12, 2007, and the jury convicted Hindman on each count of the indictment on February 15, 2007. (Crim. Doc. 119). Thereafter, he filed various pro se motions. The court informed him that he could not file such motions while he was representedby counsel. (Crim. Doc. 128). Hindman filed yet another motion to dismiss counsel on August 7, 2007. (Crim. Doc. 129). Following a hearing in August 2007, the court denied the motion. (Crim. Doc. 130).
The United States Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report on Hindman. (Crim. Doc. 132 (Sealed)). On September 25, 2007, this court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Hindman to 70 months in prison as to Counts One, Two & Four to run concurrent, 120 months as to Count Three, and 300 months as to count Five, each term to run consecutive. (Crim. Doc. 134). The custodial sentence is to be followed by 60 months of supervised release. (Id.)
Mr. Burgess timely filed a notice of appeal on Hindman's behalf. (Crim. Doc. 135). He also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (Crim. Doc. 136). The court granted the motion to withdraw and appointed new counsel, Mr. Michael Rasmussen, to represent Hindman on direct appeal. (Crim. Doc. 138). In the Eleventh Circuit, Mr. Rasmussen raised a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning whether the deposits of the bank branches that were robbed were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. He also challenged this court's instruction to Hindman on the potential hazards of presenting character witnesses during trial. (Crim. Doc. 150 at 3). On July 1, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Hindman's conviction and sentence. (Id.); United States v. Hindman, 284 F. App'x 694 (11th Cir. 2008). That mandate was entered on September 24, 2008. (Crim. Doc. 150 at 1). Hindman's pro se petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied on May 12, 2009. (Crim. Doc. 151); Hindman v. United States, 556 U.S. 1227 (2009).
On May 6, 2010, Hindman filed a petition to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to § 2255. (Civ. Doc. 1). That motion is 305 pages long, includes another 380 pages ofattachments, and asserts forty-one "grounds" for relief, many of which include various subclaims. (Id.; Civ. Docs. 1-1 through 1-21). On July 16, 2010, Hindman filed an amendment to his motion by which he supplemented his arguments on three of his grounds for relief. (Civ. Doc. 12). The United States responded with its own 51-page memorandum in opposition that included several exhibits, including an affidavit from Hindman's counsel at trial, Burgess. (Civ. Doc. 13). On April 25, 2011, Hindman filed another 349-page evidentiary submission. (Civ. Doc. 20). On April 16, 2012, Hindman filed a reply to the opposition materials filed by the United States. (Civ. Doc. 28).
Hindman also filed various requests for discovery and for an evidentiary hearing (Civ. Docs. 5-10, 20, 21 & 23), most of which the court denied. (Civ. Docket Entry dated March 28, 2012). Hindman then filed an "Interlocutory Appeal" with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Civ. Doc. 25). He also filed a motion to reconsider the denial of relief. (Civ. Doc. 26). This court denied Hindman's request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Civ. Doc. 31), and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Civ. Doc. 32). The court thereafter granted in part and denied in part Hindman's motion for reconsideration. (Civ. Doc. 33). He filed another notice of appeal (Civ. Doc. 35), but the Court of Appeals also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Civ. Doc. 40). The Court of Appeals subsequently denied his motions for reconsideration. (Civ. Doc. 42 & 43).
Hindman filed a motion seeking the recusal and/or disqualification of both the undersigned district judge and the referral magistrate judge from further consideration of his § 2255 motion. (Civ. Doc. 39). The court denied that motion. (Civ. Doc. 44). Hindman once again filed a notice of appeal, this time as to the denial of his motion for recusal. (Civ. Doc. 45). The Eleventh Circuit dismissed that appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction on January 21,2014. (Civ. Doc. 50).
The § 2255 motion case is now ripe for disposition.
On direct appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals summarized the trial evidence, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial