MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Matthew Lee Staszak's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) and supplements to the motion (Docs. 6 & 31). The Government has responded to the motion (Docs. 20, 47 & 60), and Staszak has replied to those responses (Docs. 26, 51, 56 & 61). The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 22-23 and April 16, 19, and 25, 2018, Staszak and the Government filed post-hearing briefs (Docs. 116 & 129).
On June 20, 2012, a grand jury returned an indictment against Staszak. He pled not guilty to the charges. After being released on bond, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment changing one statutory citation and adding one additional charge. On October 4, 2012, Staszak failed to appear for arraignment on the superseding indictment, and the Government discovered he had removed his location monitoring device—an ankle bracelet—and had absconded. This led the grand jury to return the Second Superseding Indictment while Staszak was a fugitive adding a charge of failure to appear based on Staszak's failure to appear at the arraignment on the superseding indictment. Staszak was eventually apprehended, his bond was revoked, and on June 3, 2013, he was arraigned on the Second Superseding Indictment.
On August 5, 2013, Staszak pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and stipulation of facts to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) (Count 1), two counts of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (Counts 2 and 3), and one count of failure to appear at a required court hearing in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) (Count 4).
On February 7, 2014, the Court held a sentencing hearing at which it found Staszak's offense level was 43 (adjusted down from 45 pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline Manual ("U.S.S.G.") Ch. 5, Part A cmt. n. 2 (2012)), and his criminal history category was I, which yielded a guideline sentencing range of life. The Court reduced that range to the 30-year statutory maximum sentences for Counts 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a), see 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e); 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), yielding an effective guideline sentencing range for those counts of 360 months. The Court sentenced the petitioner to serve 180 months on Counts 1, 2 and 3, concurrently, and 60 months on Count 4, consecutive to the sentence for Counts 1, 2 and 3, for a total of 240 months in prison. This was 60 months less than the 300-month sentence agreed to by Staszak and the Government. The petitioner did not appeal his conviction. On January 8, 2015, Staszak filed the pending § 2255 motion.
In his timely § 2255 motion and supplements, Staszak argues the following:
Ground 1: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she informed him in June and July 2013 that if he did not plead guilty, the Government would prosecute his family for aiding and abetting him while he was a fugitive; he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process right when he involuntarily pled guilty to avoid that threat of his family's prosecution;
Ground 2: He was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process rights when theGovernment induced him to plead guilty by threatening to prosecute his family when it did not have probable cause to believe his family had aided or abetted him while he was a fugitive;
Ground 3: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to investigate Count 1, which would have revealed the Government did not actually possess certain evidence of the charged offense—a video of sexually explicit conduct with a minor and evidence linking his cell phone to any sexually explicit conduct—and recommended he plead guilty to Count 1 without conducting a proper investigation; he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process right when he unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily pled guilty;
Ground 4: His Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct by charging him with sexual exploitation of a minor in Count 1 without evidence of a video of sexually explicit conduct with a minor and evidence linking his cell phone to any sexually explicit conduct, which showed it lacked a nexus to interstate commerce and thus subject matter jurisdiction; his counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to argue the Government lacked jurisdiction; he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process right when he unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily pled guilty;
Ground 5: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she advised him to execute a plea agreement and stipulation of facts and to plead guilty to Count 1 after he had informed him that the allegations in Count 1 had never occurred;
Ground 6: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she advised him to execute a plea agreement and stipulation of facts and to plead guilty to Count 2 after he had informed him that the allegations in Count 2 had never occurred;
Ground 7: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to do legal research to discover that the conduct charged in Count 3 does not amount to a federal offense; his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct by charging him with Count 3 when it knew his conduct did not amount to a federal offense; he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process right when he unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily pled guilty;Ground 8: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to pursue the Government's offer for Staszak to cooperate in the prosecution of his minor victim's mother; his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated when the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct by falsely representing to Staszak that he would receive a sentence reduction if he cooperated and to the Court at sentencing that there was an ongoing investigation of the victim's mother; he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process right when he unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily pled guilty;
Ground 9: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she and others in her office induced Staszak to plead guilty using threats of prosecution of his family or of him by other jurisdictions, false promises of a sentence reduction for cooperation and assistance of counsel through his cooperation;
Ground 10: He was denied his Fifth Amendment due process rights when the Government failed to produce exculpatory evidence, a forensic examination of his cell phone showing no images of sexual activity; he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment due process right when he unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily pled guilty;
Ground 11: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he and/or his parents instructed her to do so on two occasions;
Ground 12: He was denied his Fifth Amendment due process rights when the Government failed to comply with grand jury procedures contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6; his counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to contest the Court's jurisdiction light of the violation of Rule 6;
Ground 13: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to investigate Count 2, which would have revealed that a dominant purpose of his interstate travel was not to have illicit sexual conduct with the victim, and when she failed to challenge the Court's jurisdiction on this basis; and
Ground 14: His counsel was constitutionally ineffective in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when she failed to investigate two individuals he claims were involved in criminal conduct with his victimand falsely promised him he would receive sentence reduction of at least 50% for assisting with prosecution of the other individuals; the Government committed misconduct by representing to the Court he was to receive a sentence reduction and by withholding evidence regarding these other individuals' criminal conduct from his counsel.
Staszak states several times that had the Government not threatened to prosecute his family and had his counsel been constitutionally effective, he would not have pled guilty and would have proceeded to trial.
In an order dated April 7, 2015 (Doc. 3), the Court determined that it was plain from the motion and the record of the prior proceedings that the petitioner was not entitled to relief on Ground 12. See Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. The Court ordered the Government to respond to Grounds 1-11, 13, and 14, which it has done (Docs. 20, 47 & 60), and Staszak has replied to those responses (Docs. 26, 51, 56 & 61).
As a preliminary matter, the Government asks the Court to ignore some of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by Staszak in support of his motion on the grounds that the affidavits are not made on personal knowledge and/or that the evidence is irrelevant. In its consideration of the motion, the Court will...
