Stinson v. U.S.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. 3:99-0043.,3:99-0043.
• Citation: 102 F.Supp.2d 912
• Parties: Steve STINSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

102 F.Supp.2d 912

Steve STINSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

No. 3:99-0043.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

March 31, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gregory Dale Smith, Clarksville, TN, for Steve Stinson, petitioners.

Sunny A.M. Koshy, Office of the United States Attorney, Nashville, TN, for USA, respondents.

MEMORANDUM

ECHOLS, District Judge.

Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 6) of the Court's dismissal of Petitioner's claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to which the United States responds in opposition. Also pending is Respondent's Motion to Accept Affidavit, to which no opposition has been filed. For the reasons explained herein, Respondent's Motion is hereby DENIED. Petitioner's Motion, however, is hereby GRANTED.

I.

On October 17, 1997, Petitioner pled guilty to an indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Court subsequently sentenced Petitioner to 180 months, the minimum sentence authorized under federal law. On January 13, 1999, Petitioner filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Docket Entry No. 1). Specifically, Petitioner alleged that he was not fully aware of the charges against him and that he was under the impression that he would only be placed on probation as a result of the plea agreement. Respondent moved to dismiss Petitioner's habeas petition, and the Court granted Respondent's Motion. (Docket Entries No. 4 and 5).

On July 6, 1999, Petitioner filed the present Motion in which he urges the Court to reconsider its Order denying Petitioner's § 2255 Motion. (Docket Entry No. 6). On that same day, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Docket Entry No. 7). By Order entered on the docket on August 24, 1999, (Docket Entry No. 12), the Court reserved its ruling on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration pending Petitioner's compliance with the procedures outlined in Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 395 (6th Cir.1993). The Court noted, however, that the allegations raised by Petitioner in his Motion for Reconsideration "are sufficiently exceptional or extraordinary so to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6)." (Docket Entry No. 11). The Court continued:

While the Court would have preferred that the allegations raised by Petitioner had been brought up sooner, the Court is more concerned that justice be done. Accordingly, the Court notes that it is inclined to grant the relief requested and to grant Petitioner an evidentiary hearing to air the allegations made in his Motion for Reconsideration.

(Id.)

Pursuant to the Order of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals entered September 3, 1999, (Docket Entry No. 14), Petitioner voluntarily dismissed his appeal of the Court's prior Order. The Court then reopened Petitioner's habeas petition and held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on January 27, 2000.

II.

Respondent asks the Court to consider the affidavit statement of Nathaniel Koenig, Petitioner's former attorney, as evidence in ruling on Petitioner's section 2255 motion. Mr. Koenig initially was present at Petitioner's evidentiary hearing on January 27, 2000, but was not present when called as a witness by counsel for the Respondent. Prior to adjourning the hearing, the Court asked Respondent's counsel if he wished to leave the proof open. After hesitating, counsel declined to do so. Respondent now seeks to admit the affidavit testimony of Mr. Koening for the Court's consideration. In ruling on Petitioner's section 2255 petition, the Court is not inclined to consider evidence on which Petitioner has not had the opportunity to cross-examine and may be prejudiced thereby.¹ As such, Respondent's Motion to Consider Affidavit is hereby DENIED.

III.

To prevail on a section 2255 motion alleging constitutional error, a petitioner must establish an error of constitutional magnitude that "had substantial and injurious effect or influence" on the proceedings. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (citation omitted). In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial to petitioner's case. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The first element of the Strickland analysis requires the petitioner to show that his counsel made errors so serious that he was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. The second element requires that the petitioner show that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. See id. The Supreme Court has cautioned, however, that "[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential." Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. "A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time." Id.

IV.

In his Motion for Reconsideration and at his evidentiary hearing, Petitioner alleges numerous errors of constitutional magnitude that Petitioner claims "had substantial and injurious effect or influence" on his sentencing hearing. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710. The Court will examine each in turn.

A.

First, Petitioner alleges that his attorneys may have committed fraud. However, when questioned by defense counsel, the Government, and the Court at the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner explained that his jailhouse lawyer had included the term "fraud" when drafting Petitioner's Motion. According to Petitioner, the only "fraud" committed by his attorneys was that they did not do what they had promised to do for him. This allegation alone does not provide grounds for the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct Petitioner's sentence.

B.

Next, Petitioner alleges that he did not enter into his plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily because he was under the influence of medication during the plea hearing and he withheld this information during the plea colloquy at the instruction of his attorney, who instructed him to lie to the Court in order to have his guilty plea accepted. However, the transcript of Petitioner's plea hearing reveals otherwise. When asked by the Court at his plea hearing whether Petitioner was "presently under the influence of any drug or medication or alcoholic beverage of any kind," Petitioner openly acknowledged that he had taken medication for ulcers, pain, nerves, allergies, and migraine headaches. Transcript of Plea Hearing at 6-7; 31-32. The Court inquired as to whether "any of these medicines ha[d] a mind-altering effect or ke[pt] [Petitioner] from having a clear head and thinking straight," to which Petitioner responded "No, sir. Not unless you abuse them. I don't abuse them." Id. at 7. The Court went on to ask, "You just took them in an amount of dosage prescribed to you by the doctor this morning, is that right?" to which Petitioner again stated, "Yes, sir." Id. at 7-8. Thus, Petitioner's allegation that he failed to reveal to the Court that he was under the influence of medication at the instruction of his attorney is contradicted by the transcript of the plea hearing and does not provide grounds for the Court to vacate, set aside, or correct Petitioner's sentence.

C.

Petitioner also alleges that due to his counsel's allegedly deficient performance, Petitioner did not enter into his plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily and did not fully understand the nature of the plea. Again, Petitioner acknowledges that he stated during the plea hearing that he understood the nature of the plea. Petitioner claims, however, that his attorney told him to always answer in the affirmative when asked questions by the Court and that failure to do so would keep the Court from accepting the plea. Defense counsel also allegedly stated that what was discussed during the plea colloquy concerning any sentence was irrelevant and would not impact any sentence Petitioner actually received.

While Plaintiff claims that he did not understand the nature of the plea agreement, the record reflects that the Court conducted an extensive plea colloquy with Petitioner. During the colloquy, Court explained in detail the elements of the charge. Transcript of Plea Hearing at 8-9. Petitioner acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offense, that he had discussed those elements and the entire case with defense counsel, and that his attorney had discussed any possible defenses with him. Id. at 8-10. The Court also explained the Government's burden of proof with respect to the charges against Petitioner and Petitioner's right to a jury trial as an alternative to pleading guilty. Id. at 8-9. Petitioner stated that he wished to plead guilty. Id. at 22. The Court verified that Petitioner had read and understood the contents of the plea petition, including portions relating to the penalties and guideline ranges. Id. at 27. Petitioner stated that he had read and understood the plea petition which he had discussed with his attorney and that no one had made suggestions or promises concerning his sentence other than to discuss the applicable guideline range of at least 180 months imprisonment. Id. at 29-30.

Petitioner further asserts that he was under the impression that he would merely be sentenced to probation as a result of the guilty plea. A review of the record likewise disputes this contention. The plea petition shows that Petitioner was advised he faced a mandatory...