U.S. v. Stanford
| Decision Date | 30 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-024.,93-024. |
| Citation | 990 F.Supp. 402 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Jessie Wayne STANFORD. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Jessie Wayne Stanford was charged in a criminal information with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. The information reads as follows:
The United States Attorney for the District of Maryland charges that:
Between on or about September 9, 1988 and on or about June 26, 1991, in the State and District of Maryland, Jessie Wayne Stanford knowingly and willfully did convert to his own use the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) belonging to the United States Farmers Home Administration, an agency of the United States.
He appeared for initial appearance with retained counsel on February 8, 1993, at which time he also entered a plea of guilty under a written plea agreement set forth in a letter dated November 24, 1992, addressed to defendant's counsel. The plea bargain was approved by the defendant and his counsel on December 3, 1992. After completion of a presentence investigation, the defendant was sentenced on October 5, 1993, to a term of unsupervised probation for a period of one (1) year with certain special conditions and was also required to pay a mandatory special assessment of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00)1 . No appeal was taken; however, on October 6, 1994, a post-conviction action was filed on behalf of the defendant, which the Court has construed to be a request to set aside his conviction on the ground that the record did not reflect a factual basis for the defendant's plea of guilty on the element of criminal intent in violation of Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.2
At the time the defendant entered his guilty plea, he was thirty-seven (37) years of age, was a high-school graduate and had completed college courses equivalent to approximately one and one-half years of a college education. He had been employed in law enforcement since 1980 to 1986 as a Deputy Sheriff with the Talbot County Sheriff's Department, Easton, Maryland, and was then employed as a police officer since 1986 with the Easton Police Department for the town of Easton, Maryland.
The Court is satisfied that the defendant's position is not well taken. The record before the Court reflects that the defendant understood the element of criminal intent and that there was a factual basis for the plea of guilty on this element. During the proceedings of February 8, 1993, the criminal information was read by the court to the defendant. He acknowledged that he had received a copy of the information, had read it, and understood the charge against him. During the Rule 11 inquiry, the Court explained the element of intent, and the defendant acknowledged his understanding of same. The tape recording of the proceedings reflects the following:
Court: Now I indicated a few moments ago, that if we were to have a trial on a not guilty plea, the Government would have to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That means it would have to prove every essential element of the offense, and if any one of the elements was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt then you could not be convicted. The elements of the offense are set forth in the information and is very short and is very brief, you must understand that the core of the prosecution based upon my review of the plea bargain is that the Government is contending that you deliberately made false statements on certain Government forms that would entitle you to receive certain credits or money from the Government and that at the time you made the false statements you knew that they were false and you made the statement for the purpose of either getting credit or money from the Government that you were not lawfully or legally entitled to have. So that the charge is essentially that you did knowingly and willfully convert to your own use the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), and from my review of the plea bargain, the actual amount was much greater than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), so knowingly and willfully means that you did voluntarily with the purpose of doing something that the law forbids, doing something that was illegal and that you knew at the time that what you were doing was against the law. So that if you made an honest mistake, then it would not be knowingly and willfully. So what I am trying to tell you is that the Government would have to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt and as far as your case is concerned, it would have to prove that you made the statement on the Government document knowing that the statements were false for the purpose of obtaining money or credit that you were not legally entitled to obtain, and if they cannot prove all of that beyond a reasonable doubt, then you cannot be convicted. Do you understand everything that I have just stated?
Defendant: Yes sir.
The tape recording of the proceedings also reveals the following:
Court: Are you pleading guilty voluntarily?
Defendant: Yes sir.
Court: Are you pleading guilty because you honestly believe that you are guilty of the offense charged?
Defendant: Yes sir.
Moreover, the plea bargain letter contained a stipulation of facts to support the factual basis for the plea. The stipulation stated:
In May, 1988, Stanford applied for rural housing assistance from the United States Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA"), claiming that only his daughter lived in his Easton, Maryland household with him and that he was the only breadwinner residing there. Thereafter, in September, 1988, July, 1989, August, 1990, and June, 1991, Stanford signed FmHA interest credit agreements in which he repeated these claims, thereby qualifying for mortgage interest credits from FmHA totaling approximately Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Two Dollars ($7,752.00). In fact, however, during virtually the entire period in which Stanford received these credits, the mother of his daughter also resided in his home and contributed her income to the household. Had Stanford truthfully reported this additional income, He would not have qualified for the credits he received from FmHA.
In questioning the defendant concerning the plea bargain, the record reflects the following:
Court: The plea bargain is set forth in a letter addressed to your attorney dated November 24, 1992, and signed by you on December 3, 1992. Let me ask you whether you are satisfied that letter that you signed constitutes the entire plea bargain you have with the Government in connection with this case?
Defendant: Yes sir.
Court: Have you read the plea bargain letter word for word?
Defendant: Yes sir.
Court: Have you also discussed it with your attorney?
Defendant: Yes sir.
Court: Is there anything about the plea bargain that you do not understand?
Defendant: No sir.
At the conclusion of the Rule 11 inquiry, the following appears:
Court: Mr. Stanford do you have any questions that you would like to ask me?
Defendant: No sir.
Court: is there anything that you do not understand?
Defendant: No sir.
Court: Would you like to continue with your guilty plea or do you desire to withdraw the guilty plea?
Defendant: I would like to continue.*
The presentence investigation described the offense conduct by setting forth the stipulation as stated above, and in addition, the offense was further described as follows:
The defendant, during the presentence interview, admitted to the stipulated statement of facts as stated above. He said that when he had initially applied for the subsidy, provided by the United States Farmers Home Administration, the mother of his daughter, Ms. Carolyn Thomas, then resided in the home. However, at the time the credit agreement was approved, Ms Thomas had then gone to live with her sister. During this initial stage of application with the FmHA, the defendant and Ms Thomas were then having serious personal differences, he decided not to put her name on the FmHA paperwork.
Several months later, Ms Thomas moved back in with the defendant several months after the approval of the mortgage by FmHA, and for the duration of the period of the offense, resided with the defendant at his residence. The defendant cited financial pressures which contributed to his commission of the offense conduct, namely that the FmHA subsidy afforded him an additional One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) monthly cash flow which he used for household expenses, and for the support of his four children.
When the defendant appeared with his counsel for sentencing on October 5, 1993, he and his counsel acknowledged that they had an opportunity to read and discuss with each other the presentence investigation. (See Acknowledgment of Disclosure and Discussion of Presentence Investigation and Waiver of Ten Day Period dated October 4, 1993). Defendant's counsel stated upon inquiry by the Court that the defense had no additions or corrections to any of the information in the presentence investigation. Upon allocution, the tape recording of the proceedings reflects the following:
Defendant: I didn't have any intention of causing a problem, that I caused for myself, I was only trying to help someone that I thought was in need, that person just happened to be a friend of mine and she needed some time to save up some money so that she could get her own apartment, and I didn't want to see her in the street. She was having a hard time trying to find a place to stay, my daughter, the mother of my daughter and I thought it would be OK for awhile so she could save up some money.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THOMAS v. USA
...for coram nobis relief because he is not in custody and therefore cannot pursue habeas corpus relief. See United States v. Stanford, 990 F. Supp. 402, 405-06 (D. Md. 1997). Thomas alleges that he meets the third requirement because he is unable to pursue his chosen career in law enforcement......