U.S. v. Stotts, 88-4326
| Decision Date | 17 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-4326,88-4326 |
| Citation | 870 F.2d 288 |
| Parties | 27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1337 UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, v. Michael Jeffrey STOTTS, Plaintiff-Appellant. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John Ashby Hernandez, Jr., Carencro, La. (court-appointed), for defendant-appellee.
Michael Jeffrey Stotts, Memphis, Tenn., pro se.
Lawrence W. Moon, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph S. Cage, Jr., U.S. Atty., Thomas B. Thompson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Lafayette, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before POLITZ, JOHNSON, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Michael J. Stotts appeals the dismissal by the district court of his motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. We affirm.
In November 1983, petitioner Michael J. Stotts was incarcerated at the St. Martin Parish Jail in St. Martinville, Louisiana, after being convicted for escaping from a federal facility. While awaiting sentencing for his conviction on the escape charge, Stotts devised an extortion scheme involving three of his fellow inmates at the St. Martinville facility. As part of the above extortion scheme, Stotts directed his fellow inmates, Jack Segura, James Pool, and Wilfred Fabiano, to send letters demanding $1,000 to each of the jurors who had convicted Stotts of the escape charge. The letters, which were written by Stotts and his fellow inmates, threatened the lives of the jurors if the jurors failed to pay the $1,000. Stotts himself did not sign any of the above letters, but instead directed Segura, Pool, and Fabiano to sign the letters. On each of the letters, of which all but one were postmarked December 28, 1983, the return address was the St. Martin Parish Jail. As described by this Court in its opinion affirming the conviction of Stotts and his co-defendants on direct appeal, "[n]eedless to say, this was far from the most foolproof extortion scheme ever devised." United States v. Stotts, 792 F.2d 1318, 1320 (5th Cir.1986).
Predictably, Stotts and his co-defendants were convicted for their actions in the extortion scheme. In particular, Stotts himself was convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit extortion and seven counts of extortion. For his crime, Stotts was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fifteen years. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Stotts' conviction. Stotts, 792 F.2d 1318.
Subsequently, Stotts, proceeding pro se, filed the instant motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. The matter was thereafter referred to a federal magistrate who recommended dismissal of the section 2255 motion. After reviewing the report and recommendation of the magistrate, the district court dismissed Stotts' section 2255 motion. Stotts now appeals with the aid of appointed counsel.
In his section 2255 motion, Stotts raises the following four grounds for relief as identified by the magistrate: (1) that Stotts was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) that Stotts was denied his sixth amendment right to call witnesses and to present evidence in his favor at trial; (3) that the Government failed to disclose evidence favorable to Stotts' defense; and (4) that newly obtained evidence entitles Stotts to a new trial on the extortion charge. For the following reasons, we reject each of the above contentions by Stotts and affirm the district court.
Initially, Stotts maintains that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when the district court granted the motion of his court appointed attorney to withdraw from representing Stotts and appointed other trial counsel for Stotts approximately thirteen days prior to his trial date. In this regard, Stotts contends that the second trial counsel could not adequately prepare for the extortion trial due to the time constraints. In rejecting the above claim by Stotts, the magistrate found that "a review of the trial transcript shows that Skinner [Stotts' trial counsel] was thorough and zealous in his representation, and performed well above the objective standards of reasonableness." Applying the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), we are similarly persuaded that Stotts fails to allege sufficient facts in his section 2255 motion to warrant relief on this ground. 1
Stotts next asserts that the district court presiding over his extortion trial erred in not allowing his former attorney, Arthur F. Schafer, to testify concerning statements made by Stotts' co-defendants. The pertinent statements were allegedly made by Stotts' co-defendants during a strategy meeting which was held at the time Schafer was representing Stotts and which was attended by Schafer, Stotts, co-defendant Fabiano, Fabiano's attorney, and co-defendant Segura. Stotts maintains that statements were made at this strategy meeting by Stotts' co-defendants concerning his innocence. When Stotts attempted to call Schafer as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gentry v. Director
- Galbraith v. Director
-
Cordova v. Johnson
... ... And unless each of us believes in the law and follows the law, we are no better than the George Cordova's of the world ... ...
-
Adanandus v. Johnson
... ... secular America its macabre politics of death, collectively imposed upon the predators among us through the might of the State. Having democratically given vent to normal human emotions in the ... ...
-
Criminal Antitrust Enforcement
...attorney-client privilege between counsel and codefendant who subsequently cooperated as government witness); United States v. Stotts, 870 F.2d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 1989) (refusing to compel defendant’s former attorney to testify to statements made by codefendants because protected under comm......
-
Table of Cases
...(M.D. Ala. 1993), 161 Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555 (1931), 803, 830, 834 Stotts; United States v., 870 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1989), 1069 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531 (1978), 1639 St. Paul Reins Co. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R......
-
E-mail security risks: taking hacks at the attorney-client privilege.
...in waiver by another party). One joint client generally may not unilaterally waive the privilege. See, e.g., United States v. Stotts, 870 F.2d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that a criminal defendant cannot have his attorney testify as to confidential attorney-client statements made by c......
-
§ 38.09 JOINT DEFENSE ("COMMON INTEREST") AGREEMENTS
...when the communications are 'part of an ongoing and joint effort to set up a common defense strategy.' "); United States v. Stotts, 870 F.2d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 1989) (privilege applied to accused's statements made in a conference with his attorney, a codefendant and his attorney, and a thir......