Rodella v. United States
Citation | 435 F.Supp.3d 1222 |
Decision Date | 23 January 2020 |
Docket Number | No. CV 19-0275 JB\CG,CV 19-0275 JB\CG |
Parties | Thomas R. RODELLA, Movant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Paul D. Mannick, Coppler & Mannick, P.C., Santa Fe, New Mexico, Susan J. Clouthier, Cloutheir Law, P.L.L.C., The Woodlands, Texas, Attorneys for the Petitioner.
John C. Anderson, United States Attorney, Jeremy Pena, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Respondent.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Amended Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, filed December 11, 2019 (Doc. 22)("Amended Motion"). The primary issues are: (i) whether Movant Thomas Rodella is time-barred from bringing his Motion; and (ii) whether the Supreme Court of the United States of America's decision in United States v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019), retroactively applies to, and thus invalidates, Rodella's conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The Court concludes that (i) Rodella is not time-barred from bringing his Amended Motion because (i) 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) permits him to bring a claim under the new substantive rule of criminal procedure announced in United States v. Davis; and (ii) the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis retroactively applies to Rodella's conviction and sentence but does not invalidate his sentence because the Court concludes that he was sentenced under the elements clause, which United States v. Davis did not declare unconstitutionally vague, and not the residual clause, which United States v. Davis did declare unconstitutionally vague.1
The Court previously has laid out the underlying case's factual background in its Memorandum Opinion and Order in United States of America v. Thomas R. Rodella & Thomas R. Rodella, Jr.:
Rodella was convicted of: (i) violating Tafoya's constitutional rights by using unreasonable force and for conducting an unlawful arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 ; and (ii) using a firearm during a crime of violence's commission in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) on September 26, 2014, see United States v. Thomas R. Rodella & Thomas R. Rodella, Jr., No. CR 14-2783, Verdict at 1-2, filed September 26, 2014 (Doc. 127)("Verdict"), and the Court sentenced him to 121 months in prison, see United States v. Thomas R. Rodella & Thomas R. Rodella, Jr., No. CR 14-2783, Second Amended Judgment at 3, filed February 18, 2015 (Doc. 206)("Judgment"). This Judgment became final on October 3, 2016. See Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied by an Order of Supreme Court of the United States as to Thomas R. Rodella, filed October 3, 2016 (Doc. 238). Rodella brings this action to vacate his sentence. See Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, filed March 25, 2019 (Doc. 1)("Motion").
After a five-day trial, a jury convicted Rodella of (i) violating Tafoya's constitutional rights by using unreasonable force and for conducting an unlawful arrest in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 ; and (ii) using a firearm during a crime of violence's commission in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). See Verdict at 1-2. At trial, Rodella did not call David Thompson, who called 911 and reported that someone had a gun at the scene. See United States' Answer to Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence at 7, filed July 8, 2019 (Doc. 7)("Answer to Original Motion"). In its instructions to the jury, the Court described the second count of the instructions as follows:
Court's Final Jury Instructions (with citations) at 12, filed September 26, 2014 (Doc. 129)("Final Jury Instructions") . The Court gave the jury the following instructions regarding Count 2:
Final Jury Instructions at 25-26 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Eccleston
...Response at 3 (quoting United States v. Driscoll, 892 F.3d 1127, 1138 (10th Cir. 2018), and citing Rodella v. United States, 435 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1240-41 (D.N.M. 2020) (Browning, J.)). The United States contends that, if the record is ambiguous, the Court should: (i) look at the sentencing r......
-
United States v. Eccleston
...J., concurring). 15. The Court previously relied on United States v. Driscoll in Rodella v. United States. See 435 F. Supp. 3d 1222, 1241 n.6 (D.N.M. 2020)(Browning, J.). There, the Court stated:Although the Tenth Circuit announced this rule in a Johnson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 135 ......
-
Rodella v. United States
...Instruction.The Court notes that it used the Use/Carry Instruction in its final jury instructions. See Rodella v. United States, 435 F.Supp.3d 1222, 1229-30 (D.N.M. 2020) (Browning, J.)(citing Court's Final Jury Instructions (with citations) at 25-26, filed September 26, 2014 (Doc. 129)). A......
- Alexander v. Kirkpatrick