United States v. Baltimore, Case No. 3:07-cr-173
Decision Date | 06 February 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:07-cr-173 |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY BALTIMORE, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This criminal case is before the Court on Defendant Anthony Baltimore's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 292).
After appointment of counsel (Notation Order granting ECF No. 294), Mr. Baltimore filed an Amended § 2255 Motion (ECF No. 299). On the Court's Order for Answer (ECF No. 293), the Government filed a Response (ECF No. 301) and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 302). After discovery, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF Nos. 310, 312, 313). That hearing was held on September 22-23, 2015, and completed on October 22, 2015 (See Minute Entries for those dates). After transcripts of the hearing were filed (ECF Nos. 324, 328), the parties filed post-hearing Briefs (ECF Nos. 329, 333). The case is therefore ripe for decision.1
Defendant Anthony Baltimore was indicted by the grand jury for this District on October 24, 2007, and charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in excess of five kilograms, heroin, and marijuana (Count 1); money laundering (Count 2); and possession of a firearm during a drug offense (Count 3)(Indictment, ECF No. 4). The grand jury later added charges of money laundering (Count 4) and being engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise (Count 5)(Superseding Indictments, ECF No. 49, 61).
Mr. Baltimore was first represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender Cheryll Bennett (ECF Nos. 11, 13). The Federal Defender's Office withdrew because of a possible conflict of interest and Criminal Justice Act ("CJA") panel attorney Aaron Durden was appointed (ECF Nos. 22, 29). Mr. Baltimore asked the Court to replace Mr. Durden after he had been on the case about six months (ECF No. 45). After Judge Rice denied that request, Mr. Baltimore sought to act as his own co-counsel (ECF No. 53). At Mr. Durden's request, Judge Rice appointed CJA panel attorney Vincent Popp as co-counsel (ECF No. 80), but within a week both Messrs. Durden and Popp moved to withdraw because Mr. Baltimore had refused to meet with them on January 27, 2009 (ECF Nos. 81, 82). Judge Rice granted those requests and appointed CJA panel attorney Phillip Lehmkuhl as counsel on February 18, 2009 (ECF No. 84).
By August 2009 Mr. Baltimore had also become dissatisfied with Mr. Lehmkuhl and sought his replacement, accusing him of unethically failing to devote sufficient time to the case (ECF No. 115).2 Mr. Lehmkuhl filed a lengthy Response documenting the number of hours he had already spent on the case and projecting total focus on this case for twelve weeks before andduring trial (ECF No. 117). After Judge Rice denied Mr. Baltimore's request, Baltimore asked for reconsideration, stating his relationship with Mr. Lehmkuhl had deteriorated further (ECF No. 118). After an in-court hearing, Judge Rice again denied a replacement (ECF No. 121). On September 22, 2009, Baltimore again complained that Lehmkuhl had lied to him and said he was filing a grievance with the Bar Association (ECF No. 131).
Trial of this case commenced November 4, 2009 (Minute Entry, ECF No. 105). On November 24, 2009, the jury returned verdicts finding Mr. Baltimore guilty on Count 1 (drug conspiracy, including a Special Verdict finding more than five kilograms of cocaine involved), Count 3 (firearm possession), Count 4 (money laundering conspiracy), and Count 5 (continuing criminal enterprise involving 150 kilograms of cocaine or more), and not guilty on Count 2 (money laundering)(ECF No. 223). On February 26, 2010, Judge Rice sentenced Mr. Baltimore to mandatory life imprisonment plus sixty months on the weapons charge with concurrent sentences o n Counts 1 and 4 (ECF No. 236).
Baltimore appealed (ECF No. 239). On the Government's concession of the point, the Sixth Circuit vacated the conviction on Count 1 on double jeopardy grounds because it was a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise conviction. United States v. Baltimore, Case No. 10-3305, 482 Fed. Appx 977, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13078 (6th Cir. 2012)(copy at ECF No. 277). This action did not affect the life sentence. Id. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Baltimore v. United States, Case No. 12-7203, 133 S. Ct. 1582, 185 L. Ed. 2d 584 (2013). The instant Motion to Vacate followed a year later on March 13, 2014 (ECF No. 292) and was amended September 2, 2014 (ECF No. 299).
(Amended Motion, ECF No. 299.)
A prisoner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must allege either "(1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an error of fact or law that was so fundamental as to render the entire proceeding invalid" Mallett v. United States, 334 F.3d 491, 496-97 (6th Cir. 2003). In other words, to warrant relief under § 2255, a prisoner must demonstrate the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect of influence on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict. Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 737 (6th Cir. 2006), citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). To obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a defendant must establish the denial of a substantive right or defect in the trial that is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fairprocedure. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979); United States v. Ferguson, 918 F.2d 627, 630 (6th Cir. 1990)(per curiam). Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is available when a federal sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or the trial court was without jurisdiction or the sentence is in excess of the maximum sentence allowed by law, or is "otherwise subject to collateral attack." United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 893 (6th Cir. 1991).
Persons convicted of federal crimes have a right to appeal to the appropriate circuit court of appeals and to seek review in the United States Supreme Court, both of which Mr. Baltimore did. Considering the efficiency of having all issues dealt with in one proceeding, the federal courts have encouraged use of direct review to the fullest possible extent. Yackle, POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES, §108 (1981). A motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial