Jenkins v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 January 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:15-CV-8003-SLB,Crim. Case No. 4:09-CR-0267-SLB-HGD
• Parties: QUINTIN RICARDO JENKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

QUINTIN RICARDO JENKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Case No. 4:15-CV-8003-SLB

Crim. Case No. 4:09-CR-0267-SLB-HGD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION

January 24, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is currently pending before the court on petitioner Quintin Ricardo Jenkins's Motion to Vacate. (Doc. 1, crim. doc. 37.)¹ The Government has filed a Response and Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 6.) Jenkins did not file a reply to the Government's Response and Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the Government's Motion to Dismiss is due to be granted and Jenkins's Motion to Vacate will be dismissed as untimely filed. In the alternative the court finds that Jenkins's Motion to Vacate is due to be denied on its merits and his petition is due to be dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are set forth in Jenkins's Plea Agreement -

On June 15, 2009, at approximately 9:05 am, Quintin Ricardo Jenkins entered the Colonial Bank located at 401 Broad Street in Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama wearing blue jeans, a polo shirt, and glasses. Jenkins approached a bank teller and handed her a note that read, "This is a bomb. Give me all your money. I have the remote in my hand." After viewing a black object resembling a remote in Jenkins['s] hand, the teller adhered to his request and placed all the money from her teller drawer along with bait money and a dye pack in a bag before handing the bag to Jenkins. After taking approximately $6,412.00 in United States Currency from the teller, Jenkins walked out the front door of the bank and drove away in a maroon van.

Agent Garnett of the Federal Bureau of Investigation reviewed the surveillance photographs from the bank robbery and subsequently released these images of the suspect and a description of the maroon van used in the bank robbery to the local Gadsden, Alabama media. After the surveillance photographs from the bank were published, multiple people, including Jenkins'[s] wife, mother and uncle, called and notified law enforcement that Jenkins was the suspect depicted in the photograph. Jenkins'[s] wife also confirmed that Jenkins drove a maroon van identical to the getaway vehicle seen driven by the Colonial Bank robber. Agent Garnett reviewed Jenkins photograph in a law enforcement database and positively identified him as the same individual in the bank surveillance photographs.

Law enforcement received information that Jenkins was staying at a location in Huntsville, Alabama with a female friend. Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation went to the location and were met by Jenkins. When approached by the agents, Jenkins stated that he knew agents were there because he had robbed the bank. During the search incident to arrest, law enforcement found a bag and a wallet in Jenkins['s] possession containing dye stained money from the bank robbery. Jenkins was taken into custody and transported to the local jail.

(Crim. doc. 27 at 2-3.) At the plea colloquy, Jenkins testified that these facts were "substantially correct." (Crim. doc. 38 at 16-18.)

On July 1, 2010, the United States filed a single-court Indictment against Jenkins, which charged him as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of June, 2009, in Etowah County, within the Northern District of Alabama, the defendant,

QUINTIN RICARDO JENKINS,

did knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully, by force, violence and intimidation take from the person and presence of another, money, that is United States currency, belonging to and in the care, custody, control, management and possession of Colonial Bank, the deposits of which were then insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and in committing said offense, did assault or put in jeopardy the life of another person by the use of a dangerous weapon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2113(a) and (d).²

(Crim. doc. 8 [footnote added].)

Following the Indictment, Jenkins's counsel requested, and was granted, funds for the purpose of obtaining an independent psychological evaluation. (Crim docs. 10 and 11.) The court also ordered an examination of Jenkins by a forensic psychologist. (Crim. doc. 24.) The forensic psychologist reported -

On August 19, 2009, Quentin Ricardo Jenkins was interviewed and assessed in accordance with a Court Order signed by the Honorable Harwell G. Davis, III, Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Jenkins has been charged with Bank Robbery.

Jenkins remained cooperative and sufficiently attentive for completion of the evaluation. Given his level of cooperation and the availability of collateral data the following opinions are rendered with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty.

The defendant reportedly has a history of psychiatric intervention commencing around twenty-five years ago and he has been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder. Presently, he is prescribed psychotropic medication for treatment of this disorder and he was psychiatrically stable at the time of this evaluation. The defendant's history also is remarkable for criminal activities, mainly robbery[,] for which he has been incarcerated.

With regard to his competence to stand trial it is my opinion that Jenkins is aware of his charge and the allegations against him. Similarly, he has a good understanding of the potential consequences of his legal situation, roles of courtroom participants and of common court related procedures including plea bargaining process. Notably, Jenkins has been involved ;n court-related procedures previously and apparently without difficulty. During this evaluation he claimed to be willing to work with counsel and anxious to proceed with the disposition of his case. He demonstrated no difficulty in communicating and provided a personal version of the alleged incident that was logical and coherent. His ability to serve in such role will be dependent on continued compliance with prescribed medication.

As to his mental state at the time of the alleged offense it is my opinion that despite history of a serious mental illness Mr Jenkins was at the time in question[,] and in regard to the specific behaviors in question, able tounderstand and appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of his actions and could distinguish right from wrong.

(Crim. doc. 26 at 7.) Following the filing of this report, Jenkins notified the court of his intention to plead guilty pursuant to a Plea Agreement.

At the Plea Colloquy, the court discussed the forensic psychologist's report and Jenkins's mental state:

[THE COURT:] Let me ask you, Mr. Tuten, [defendant's counsel] based on your interaction with your client, do you agree with [the forensic psychologist's] assessment?

MR. TUTEN: Well, Judge, I'm certainly not a doctor, but I do agree with the assessment.

THE COURT: And let me ask more specifically, do you agree with her assessment that he is competent now to enter a plea of guilty and to assist you in his defense should he decide to go to trial?

MR. TUTEN: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: That's really the only questions I think I want to ask you.

. . .

THE COURT: . . . [B]ased on [the forensic psychologist's] report and defendant's counsel's belief that he is able to assist him in his defense and that he is competent to enter this plea of guilty, [the court finds] that [Jenkins] is, in fact, competent to enter his plea of guilty.

. . .

THE COURT: Within the past 72 hours, have you taken or received any medication, drugs or narcotics?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Could you tell me what those are?

THE DEFENDANT: Haldol and Cogentin.

. . .

THE COURT: Haldol, is that an antipsychotic? What is that medicine?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Tell me what you understand it to be.

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I have a sleeping disorder, and it helps with the sleeping disorder and paranoia.

THE COURT: And the other medication as well?

THE DEFENDANT: Side effects.

. . .

THE COURT: Cogentin does what again?

THE DEFENDANT: For side effects.

THE COURT: Side effects of the Haldol?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Is there anything about either of those medications, Mr. Jenkins, that would cause you to be unable to appreciate what you're doing here today, pleading guilty to a serious felony offense?

THE DEFENDANT: No. They help me.

(Crim. doc. 38 at 4, 10, 12-13.)

At sentencing, defense counsel argued that Jenkins was competent but "his capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions [was] diminished in some way" by hismental illness. (Crim. doc. 39 at 6.) He noted Jenkins was "not a problem" when he took his medication, but he quickly "went down hill" when he did not take his medication. (Id. at 7.) Noting that his compliance with his medication could not be guaranteed and his history of violent crimes, the court held, "I can't go along with your request [for a low-end Guideline sentence] here. I think looking at [Jenkins's] history, and I'm not disputing that he has mental issues, but I think the government's recommendation [of 216 months] is reasonable." (Id. at 8, 14.) The court sentenced Jenkins to 216 months imprisonment and held that "a lengthy sentence of this nature is needed to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. [Jenkins's sentence is] adequate to deter criminal conduct by him," and "the history and characteristics of the defendant to me warrant this kind of a sentence." (Id. at 15.) The court did not consider Jenkins's race in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court entered its Judgment in this case on April 28, 2010. (Crim. doc. 32.) In his Plea Agreement, Jenkins waived his rights to appeal and to collaterally challenge his conviction and sentence, (crim. doc. 27 at 5-7); he did not file a direct appeal of his Judgment. Therefore, the Judgment in this case became final on May 12, 2010.

The deadline for filing a Motion to Vacate pursuant to § 2255 was May 12, 2011. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)("A 1-year...