Thomas v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2150,91-2150 |
| Citation | 951 F.2d 902 |
| Parties | Gregory Wade THOMAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Gregory Wade Thomas, pro se.
Gary L. Hayward, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, WOLLMAN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Wade Thomas appeals from the district court's 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm.
Thomas pleaded guilty to drug distribution, conspiracy, and weapons charges. The district court imposed a 168-month prison term on the drug charges, a concurrent 60-month term on the felon-in-possession of a firearm charge, and a consecutive 5-year term on the charge of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Thomas appealed, arguing that use of two prior convictions to enhance his sentence violated double jeopardy. This court rejected his argument, and affirmed the sentence. United States v. Thomas, 895 F.2d 1198, 1201-02 (8th Cir.1990).
Thomas then filed this section 2255 motion, claiming his guilty plea should be vacated and his sentence set aside. He asserted that he was selected for federal prosecution because he is black; that he was entitled to a downward departure at sentencing based on his potential for drug rehabilitation; that the presentence report (PSR) contained erroneous information; that his guilty plea was invalid; and that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Thomas alleged that there was no factual basis for his plea to the conspiracy count or to the use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime count; that the district court failed to explain adequately the meaning of an Alford 2 plea; and that the plea was coerced because he was suffering from cocaine withdrawal at the time. As support for the ineffective assistance claim, Thomas alleged counsel's performance was deficient because she failed to conduct an adequate pre-plea investigation, object to inaccurate information in the PSR, argue the selective prosecution issue, and present or obtain evidence pertaining to Thomas' drug addiction.
The district court ordered the government to respond, and then denied the motion for "the reasons stated in the government's response." This appeal followed. Thomas reiterates the claims raised in his motion, and argues the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Thomas' selective prosecution claim fails because he did not allege an essential element--that he was "singled out for prosecution while similarly situated individuals have not been prosecuted for similar conduct." United States v. Aanerud, 893 F.2d 956, 960 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 72, 112 L.Ed.2d 46 (1990). Additionally, because the claim lacks merit, Thomas' attorney was not ineffective for failing to raise it. Next, we reject Thomas' contention that he was entitled to a downward departure based on the likelihood that he would overcome his drug addiction while incarcerated. See United States v. Laird, 948 F.2d 444, 447 (8th Cir.1991) ( same argument). Thomas' claim regarding the inaccuracies in the PSR is meritless because the alleged errors had no impact on his sentence. Consequently, Thomas' counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to these matters.
We also reject Thomas' attack on the sufficiency of the factual basis for his guilty pleas to the charges of conspiracy and use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Thomas' testimony reveals that he agreed to allow four unnamed persons to use his home to process and package their crack cocaine. Thomas had previously purchased crack from these individuals, and he received a $2,000 reduction on his drug debt for helping them. Thomas stipulated that 428 grams of crack were recovered from his home. This is sufficient to support his guilty plea to the conspiracy charge. See United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377, 1384 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied sub nom. Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1428, 113 L.Ed.2d 480 (1991). On the firearms charge, Thomas admitted he owned three of the five weapons listed in the indictment and found in his bedroom when he was arrested. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grate
...motion for acquittal is not ineffective assistance when such a motion would have been futile. See Scott at ¶ 20 ; Thomas v. United States , 951 F.2d 902, 905 (8th Cir.1991). Here, the state presented overwhelming evidence linking Grate to the crimes charged. Defense counsel were not deficie......
-
Luster v. United States
...differently. Thus, movant's pre-plea ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims fail. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 59; Thomas v. United States, 951 F.2d 902, 905 (8th Cir. 1991). In a related pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel claim, movant asserts that state court counsel was ineffect......
-
Johnston v. Love
...L.Ed.2d 502 (1994) (failure to raise non-meritorious issues does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel); Thomas v. United States, 951 F.2d 902, 904 (8th Cir.1991) (defense counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objections); United States v. Lawson, 947 F.2d 849, 8......
-
Strong v. Roper
...to perform those acts which clearly appear to be futile or fruitless at the time the decision must be made."); Thomas v. United States, 951 F.2d 902, 904 (8th Cir. 1991)("because the claim lacks merit, Thomas' attorney was not ineffective for failing to raise it"). Finally, even if defense ......