Sadipe v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. C 17-3010-MWB,No. CR 14-3065-MWB,C 17-3010-MWB,CR 14-3065-MWB |
| Parties | OLUWASEYI ADEMOLA SADIPE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
This case is before me on petitioner Oluwaseyi Ademola Sadipe's February 13, 2017, pro se Motion Under § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody (§ 2255 Motion). In his pro se § 2255 Motion, Sadipe seeks relief based on various allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, but his appointed habeas counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating counsel's belief that Sadipe's claims are without merit. The respondent also denies that Sadipe is entitled to any relief on his claims.
On December 2, 2014, Sadipe was indicted as the sole defendant in a five-count Indictment. Count 1 of the Indictment charged Sadipe with misuse of a Social Security account number in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). Count 2 charged Sadipe with aggravated identity theft involving transfer, possession, and use of a means of identification, specifically, a social security number, of another actual person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Counts 3 through charged Sadipe with separate counts of making false claims of United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. An attorney from the Federal Defender's Office was appointed to represent him. At hisinitial appearance and arraignment on December 10, 2014, Sadipe pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
Although the prosecution made a plea offer, which Sadipe's counsel discussed with him and recommended he accept, Sadipe proceeded to a jury trial on February 9, 2015. All exhibits were pre-admitted at a pre-trial conference, although I directed that pages 19 and 20 of the prosecution's Exhibit 2 be deleted. Sadipe points out that all the potential jurors in the pool were Caucasian. During voir dire, one prospective juror stated that a black man stole the juror's credit card and that the juror was a victim of identity theft. The juror was not excused for cause nor did either party use a peremptory strike to remove him. The parties do not dispute that the prosecution exercised six peremptory strikes, while Sadipe's counsel exercised ten. Presentation of evidence was completed on February 9, 2015. Prior to closing arguments on February 10, 2015, Sadipe addressed the court personally, outside the presence of the jury, to express some of his concerns about the trial. I advised Sadipe to hold his arguments until the conclusion of the trial. The jury heard closing arguments on February 10, 2015, and later that day returned a guilty verdict on all five charges against Sadipe.
Sadipe's sentencing hearing was on June 1, 2015. I sentenced Sadipe to one month on Counts 1, , , and , to be served concurrently, and 24 months, the mandatory minimum sentence, on Count 2, to be served consecutively to all other counts.
Sadipe filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 2015, but on March 11, 2016, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support Sadipe's conviction on all five counts. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to consider Sadipe's "unspecified and unpreserved pro se arguments challenging pretrial matters and voir dire, and the record is not adequately developed to address his broad and undeveloped claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." Opinion, 2, reported at United States v. Sadipe, 638 F. App'x 547, 548 (8th Cir. 2016).
As I noted, above, Sadipe filed his pro se § 2255 Motion on February 13, 2017, in which he asserted four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In an Initial Review Order, filed February 14, 2017, I directed that counsel be appointed to represent Sadipe, and I also directed the respondent to file an answer or other appropriate response to Sadipe's § 2255 Motion. The respondent filed its Answer on March 27, 2017, denying Sadipe's claims. Consequently, on April 21, 2017, I set a briefing schedule on Sadipe's § 2255 Motion.
On August 10, 2017, Sadipe's habeas counsel filed an Anders brief stating habeas counsel's belief that Sadipe's claims are without merit. That same day, habeas counsel filed a motion requesting that Sadipe be permitted sufficient time to submit a pro se brief in this matter. I granted that request by Order dated August 21, 2017, and set deadlines for Sadipe to file any pro se brief, for the respondent to file a responsive brief, and for Sadipe to file any reply brief. Sadipe did not file any pro se brief. The respondent filed its responsive brief on October 3, 2017. Sadipe did not file any reply brief.
"Section 2255 [of Title 28 of the United States Code] 'was intended to afford federal prisoners a remedy identical in scope to federal habeas corpus.'" Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 343 (1974)). Nevertheless, "[l]ike habeas corpus, this remedy 'does not encompass all claimed errors in conviction and sentencing.'" Id. (quotingUnited States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 185 (1979). Specifically, § 2255 provides as follows:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground [1] that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or [2] that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or [3] that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or [4] is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Thus, § 2255 "provides a remedy for jurisdictional and constitutional errors," but "[b]eyond that, the permissible scope of a § 2255 collateral attack on a final conviction or sentence is severely limited; 'an error of law does not provide a basis for collateral attack unless the claimed error constituted "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice."'" Sun Bear, 688 F.3d at 704 (quoting Addonizio, 442 U.S. at 185, in turn quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428 (1962)); accord Walking Eagle v. United States, 742 F.3d 1079, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 2014) ("'Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and, if uncorrected, would result in a complete miscarriage of justice.'" (quoting United States v. Apfel, 97 F.3d 1074, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996)).
In addition, where an issue was raised, considered, and rejected on the merits on direct appeal, "it may not be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241." United States v. Rhodes, 730 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir. 2013). Also, where a claim was not raised on direct appeal, it generally may not be raised in a § 2255 motion. Walking Eagle, 742 F.3d at 1082. A petitioner may overcome "procedural default" from failure to raise a claim on direct appeal, however, if the petitionerestablishes both "'cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the error.'" Id. (quoting Apfel, 97 F.3d at 1076, in turn citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982)). "'Absent unusual circumstances, a showing of ineffective assistance of counsel satisfies both cause and prejudice.'" Id. (quoting Apfel, 97 F.3d at 1076)).
Indeed, "ineffective assistance of counsel" claims are not procedurally defaulted when brought for the first time pursuant to § 2255. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508 (2003). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has also...
To continue reading
Request your trial