United States v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 7:15-cr-42 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CLIFTON DERON CAMPBELL, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
On August 20, 2019, defendant Clifton Deron Campbell, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 87. The government filed a motion to dismiss Campbell's petition on January 10, 2020, ECF No. 94, to which Campbell responded on February 4, 2020. ECF No. 96. On June 9, 2020, the Federal Public Defender entered an appearance on Campbell's behalf and filed a supplemental brief in support of his motion. ECF Nos 98, 99, 100. On June 12, 2020, the court ordered the parties to file additional briefing on Campbell's claim brought pursuant to Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019) and the parties did so. ECF Nos. 101, 102, 108, 109 111. For the reasons stated below, the court will GRANT the government's motion and DENY Campbell's petition.
On May 28, 2015, Campbell was indicted on one count of possession of a firearm after he had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(e). ECF No. 1. On March 7, 2016, he entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to the charge. The government agreed to recommend a sentence of 180 months if Campbell were found to be an Armed Career Criminal. Plea Agrm't, ECF No. 39 at 1-3. He pled guilty the same day. ECF Nos. 36-38. On July 18, 2016, Campbell was sentenced to 180 months, with the term to run concurrently with a 24-month sentence imposed in United States v. Campbell, 7:02-cr-66 (W.D. Va. July 18, 2016), based on revocation of supervised release in that case.
Campbell filed a direct appeal in the instant case, arguing that the court erred when it denied a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction on February 2, 2017. ECF Nos. 58, 59. Campbell sought a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 10, 2017. ECF Nos. 61, 62.
Campbell raises three arguments in support of his § 2255 motion. First, he asserts that his conviction should be vacated because of the participation of Officer Craig Frye in the investigation and prosecution of his case. Second, he contends that he is entitled to relief under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). Third, he argues that he is innocent of the Armed Career Criminal enhancement filed his case, relying on the decision in Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015).
To state a viable claim for relief under § 2255, a petitioner must prove: (1) that his sentence was “imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States;” (2) that “the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence;” or (3) that “the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). If a petition alleges a sentencing error that is neither constitutional nor jurisdictional, “a district court lacks authority to review it unless it amounts to a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 936 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974)). A petitioner collaterally attacking his conviction or sentence via a § 2255 petition bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to relief. White v. United States, 352 F.Supp.2d 684, 687 (E.D. Va. 2004) ().
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions, or the [§ 2255 Rules], may be applied to” § 2255 proceedings. Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The court may dismiss a § 2255 motion without a hearing when the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings conclusively show that the moving party is not entitled to relief. United States v. Renrick, No. 6:11-CR-00338-JMC-16, 2019 WL 4140934, *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2019) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)).
“When the district court denies § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing, the nature of the court's ruling is akin to a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2007). The court does not weigh the evidence but reviews the facts in the tight most favorable to the petitioner and determines whether there is a genuine issue of fact. Lewis v. United States, No. 4:12-CR-00068-FL-2, 2015 WL 2401514, at *3 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “Permissible inferences must still be within the range of reasonable probability, ... and it is the duty of the court to [grant summary judgment] when the necessary inference is so tenuous that it rests merely upon speculation and conjecture.” Id. (citing Lovelace v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 681 F.2d 230, 241 (4th Cir. 1982) (quotations omitted)).
(1) Participation of Craig Frye
In April 2018, two years after Campbell was convicted and sentenced, the government filed a motion seeking disclosure of grand jury materials and potential impeachment materials regarding Officer Frye. The court granted the motion on May 16, 2018. ECF No. 80. Campbell's motion recounts some of the information disclosed about Frye, as does the government's motion to dismiss.
In short, starting in 2004 and continuing through 2017, Campbell claims that Frye engaged in dishonest practices multiple times while on the job, including conducting investigations outside the scope of standard patrol-level enforcement and circumventing department procedures, being untruthful during testimony in a drug prosecution, failing to disclose to a United States Attorney, who was preparing a case for trial and had posed the standard Giglio[1] questions to Frye, that he had previously been arrested and charged with felony larceny, [2] and failing to disclose various internal investigations into allegations of misconduct on his part. In addition, Frye was disciplined for making racially insensitive remarks about African Americans, making sexually inappropriate comments to a female coworker, and for sexual harassment of another female co-worker.
Based on Frye's behavior, a Roanoke County Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney decided not to sponsor Frye's testimony in any further cases unless the testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Also, the United States Attorney determined that Frye would no longer be permitted to testify as a government witness.
Given the above revelations about Frye, Campbell argues that the indictment in his case should be dismissed and his conviction and sentence vacated. He claims that Frye led the investigation that resulted in his arrest and that his conviction should be vacated because Frye was known to target African Americans and also to lie on applications for warrants. ECF No. 87 at 15. However, a review of the record indicates that while Frye was involved in the search of Campbell's home, there were several officers present and Frye's report of the search was supported by another report filed at the time. The fact that Frye was involved in the search, without more, is insufficient to warrant relief under § 2255.
According to a Report of Investigation prepared by Frye and authorized by Resident Agent in Charge James J. Panos, III, on May 7, 2015, Roanoke Police Officer Mike Maddy arrested Campbell at his girlfriend's residence on an outstanding felony arrest warrant for shooting into an occupied vehicle. Maddy searched Campbell and found a baggie of what appeared to be marijuana, seven empty baggies, and a set of digital scales in Campbell's pants pocket. Maddy transported Campbell to Roanoke City jail for processing. Detective Teddy Lovell obtained a search warrant for the residence, which was rented by Campbell's girlfriend. Items found in the search included two firearms, one of which was loaded with four rounds, ammunition, miscellaneous firearms accessories, plastic bags containing marijuana, clothing that appeared to fit Campbell, and mail with his name on it. Rep't of Incident, ECF No. 94-1 at 1-2.
One of the firearms, a Ruger revolver, was found in a laundry basket that also contained the plastic bags containing marijuana. Id. at 2. It showed no trace results past January 6, 1975 and had not been listed as stolen. The other firearm, a Smith and Wesson pistol, belonged to Campbell's girlfriend, who had bought it the previous day. Id.
An incident report prepared by Officer Maddy on May 7, 2015 listed the items seized from Campbell's person when he was arrested and also from Campbell's girlfriend's apartment when it was searched. The report was supplemented by Detective Lovell and both accounts were consistent with Frye's account. Incident Rep't, ECF No. 94-1 at 3-9.
Frye prepared an additional report, also authorized by Panos, in which he stated that he asked Special Agent Keeth Teehan, a firearms expert, to examine the Ruger revolver. Teehan determined that the revolver was a firearm and, because it was not manufactured in the Commonwealth of Virginia, surmised that it must have been shipped or transferred in interstate commerce, foreign commerce, or both. Rep't of Investigation, ECF No. 94-2.
In another report prepared by Frye, he stated that he had spoken with officers in the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial