Jones v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 July 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1891,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 12-314-1
• Parties: MARCUS JONES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

MARCUS JONES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 12-314-1

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1891

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

July 6, 2021

OPINION

Slomsky, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2

A. Evidence Presented at Trial ................................................................................................. 5

B. Guilty Plea Colloquy ........................................................................................................... 9

C. Post-Trial Motions and Appointment of New Counsel ..................................................... 10

D. Sentence and Appeal ......................................................................................................... 14

E. The Instant 2255 Motion and the Government's Response .............................................. 16

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................. 17

IV. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 18

A. Ground 1: Petitioner's Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims Will Be Denied ....................... 18

1. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim Based on Witness Vouching Has Been Procedurally Defaulted ................................................................................................. 18 2. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim Based on Introduction of Prior Bad Act Evidence Fails Because the Prior Acts Were Admissible ............................................................. 21

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim Based on Leading and Coaching Government Witnesses Belies the Record ......................................................................................... 22

4. Four Remaining Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims are Vague and Conclusory or Otherwise Belie the Record ...................................................................................... 24

B. Ground 2: Petitioner's Claims for Alleged Violations of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 403, and 701 Will Be Denied ............................................................................... 26

C. Ground 3: Petitioner's Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims Will Be Denied .......... 28

1. Trial Counsel ................................................................................................................. 29

a. Trial Counsel's Alleged Failure to Investigate the Facts of the Government's Case and Failure to Subpoena Alibi Witness ..................................................................... 29

b. Trial Counsel's Alleged Failure to Move for Mistrial Due to Witness Perjury ........ 31

c. Trial Counsel's Alleged Failure to Object to Prosecutor's Vouching for Government Witness ........................................................................................... 33

d. Trial Counsel Did Not Admit on the Record He Was Ineffective ............................. 33

2. Post-Trial Counsel's Alleged Failure to Raise Claims On Direct Appeal ..................... 36

D. Ground 4: Inadmissible Testimony from Government Witnesses .................................... 38

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 43

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Petitioner Marcus Jones' pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("2255 Motion"). (Doc. No. 224.) On February 25, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to Counts IV and V of a Superseding Indictment charging him with the robbery of Aya's Pizza ("the Aya's Pizza robbery"). (See Doc. Nos. 127; 152 at 23:21-28:8.) Count IV charged him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (interference with commerce by threats or violence), and Count V charged him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence). (See Doc. No. 28 at 7-8.) He went to trial on the five remaining Counts of the Superseding Indictment, in which he was charged with offenses relating to his participation in two other robberies. They were the robbery of Peralta Grocery Store ("the Peralta robbery") and the robbery of Golden Kingdom II Restaurant ("the Golden Kingdom robbery"). (See id. at 1-6, 9-10.)

Ultimately, a jury found Petitioner guilty of Counts I, II, and III of the Superseding Indictment charging him with offenses relating to the Peralta robbery. (See Doc. Nos. 138; 217 at 1.) Count I charged him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3) (conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats or violence), Count II charged him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (interference with commerce by threats or violence and aiding and abetting), and Count III charged him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting). (See Doc. No. 28 at 1-6.) The jury found him not guilty on Counts VI and VII, which charged him with offenses relating to the Golden Kingdom robbery. (See id. at 9-10.)

On May 1, 2019, Petitioner filed his 2255 Motion, claiming that his sentence should be vacated, set aside, or corrected on four grounds: (1) prosecutorial misconduct ("Ground 1"); (2) violation of Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404(b), and 701 ("Ground 2"); (3) ineffectiveassistance of counsel ("Ground 3"); and (4) inadmissible testimony from government witnesses Jonte King and Maleek Brown ("Ground 4"). (Doc. No. 224 at 5-10.) On June 17, 2019, the Government filed a Response to the Motion. (Doc. No. 228.)

For reasons that follow, the Court will deny Petitioner's 2255 Motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.¹ A certificate of appealability will not be issued.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 28, 2013, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment against Petitioner Marcus Jones and two co-conspirators, Jonte King and Maleek Brown, charging them with the robberies of three retail stores located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 28.) Specifically, Petitioner was charged with the Aya's Pizza robbery.² (See id. at 7-8.) Petitioner and King were charged with the Golden Kingdom robbery. (See id. at 9-10.) And Petitioner, King, and Brown were charged with the Peralta robbery. (See id. at 5-6.)

In total, Petitioner was charged with seven offenses for the three robberies, including one count of conspiracy to rob Peralta and Golden Kingdom, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3)³ (Count I); three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Counts II, IV, and VI); and three counts of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)⁴ (Counts III, V, and VII). (Doc. No. 28.) CountsII, III, VI, and VII regarding the Peralta and Golden Kingdom robberies also charged Petitioner with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. (See id. at 5-6, 9-10.)⁵

Before trial, King and Brown pled guilty to their involvement in the Peralta and Golden Kingdom robberies. (See Doc. No. 160 at 2.) Trial in this case was listed for February 25, 2014. (See Doc. No. 106.) That morning, Petitioner pled guilty to Counts IV and V of the Superseding Indictment regarding the Aya's Pizza robbery. (See Doc. Nos. 152 at 23:21-28:8; 217 at 1.) A 4-day trial on the remaining Counts ensued. (See Doc. Nos. 152-56.)

A. Evidence Presented at Trial

The Government "called 10 witnesses during two days of testimony at trial." (Doc. No. 228 at 7; see also Doc. Nos. 153-54.) In order to establish Petitioner's involvement in the Peralta robbery, the Government presented evidence including, inter alia: (1) surveillance video of the Peralta robbery depicting the robbers stealing money from the cash register; (2) the testimony of Petitioner's co-conspirators, Brown and King; and (3) evidence that Petitioner owned distinctive blue jeans and sneakers, similar to the blue jeans and sneakers worn by one of the assailants in the Peralta robbery. (See Doc. Nos. 160 at 3-4.)

To establish Petitioner's identity as the Peralta robber, the Government introduced evidence that he owned distinctive blue jeans and sneakers, similar to those worn by one of the Peralta robbers. (See Doc. Nos. 160 at 3-4; 153 at 159:5-161:5; 154 at 97:12-21.) This evidence consisted of photos of the clothes and shoes Petitioner was wearing at the time of his arrest and photos and surveillance video of the Aya's Pizza robbery, a crime to which Petitioner had admitted committing.

When arrested, Petitioner was "wearing [black] shoes with a neon yellow stripe and jeans with [white] markings that appeared to match those of the Aya's [Pizza] robber." United States v. Jones, 737 F. App'x 68, 70 n.2 (3d Cir. 2018); (see also Doc. No. 154 at 106:3-107:10.) Noticing this similarity, police "seized the shoes and jeans to compare them to those visible in the video of the Aya's [Pizza] robbery." Id.; (see also Doc. No. 154 at 106:11-24.) At trial, Detective Kert Wilson, who assisted in the investigation of the armed robberies, testified that he "took photos of the clothes [Petitioner] was wearing when he was arrested and juxtaposed them to images from the Peralta robbery, to show whether the seized items matched the Peralta robber's clothes." Jones, 737 F. App'x at 70. The photos of Petitioner's seized clothing and shoes were introduced at trial and compared to photos and surveillance video of the Peralta robbery "in which the perpetrator wore similar distinctive black shoes with a neon yellow stripe" and blue jeans with white patches. (Doc. No. 228 at 5.)

Detective Wilson also testified "that, in his experience, surveillance videos skew the...