United States v. Chatman, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-659

Decision Date23 December 2015
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6702,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-659
PartiesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TERRANCE CHATMAN
CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
MEMORANDUM

Juan R. Sánchez, J.

Defendant Terrance Chatman has filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations. Because the record conclusively shows Chatman is not entitled to relief on any of his claims, the motion will be denied without an evidentiary hearing.

FACTS

On December 14, 2007, state parole agents conducted a search of Chatman's residence and seized several baggies of cocaine and a fully loaded handgun from a hiding place above the ceiling tiles in Chatman's bedroom. On October 28, 2008, a federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging Chatman with possession of cocaine base ("crack") with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e).1 In August 2010, prior to trial, the Government filed an information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, chargingChatman with having previously been convicted, in July 1996, of multiple felony counts of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to deliver. The filing of the § 851 notice had the effect of increasing the statutory penalties to which Chatman could be subjected on the drug counts.

Chatman proceeded to trial in November 2010. At trial, Chatman testified in his own defense, admitting the cocaine seized from his residence belonged to him and that he was selling drugs at the time, but asserting the gun belonged to his then-girlfriend, who often stayed with him and who carried the gun for protection. On November 3, 2010, the jury convicted Chatman of all four counts.

In anticipation of sentencing, the probation office conducted an investigation and prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) for Chatman. The original PSR, prepared on February 23, 2011, and circulated in revised form on March 15, 2011 (hereinafter, the "original PSR"), classified Chatman as both a career offender and an armed career criminal under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (hereinafter "U.S.S.G.") §§ 4B1.1 (career offender), 4B1.4 (armed career criminal) (U.S. Sentencing Comm'n 2010). Using the career offender guideline, which produced the higher sentencing range, the PSR assigned Chatman an offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life. Taking into account the 60-month mandatory minimum consecutive sentence on the § 924(c) charge, the PSR calculated Chatman's effective advisory Guidelines range as 420 months to life.

On April 1, 2011, Chatman's trial counsel filed a sentencing memorandum in which he objected to Chatman's classification as both a career offender and an armed career criminal, arguing Chatman had only one qualifying predicate conviction—the July 1996 drug convictionreferenced in the Government's § 851 notice—not the two prior convictions required for career offender status or the three prior convictions required for armed career criminal status.2 The probation officer thereafter issued a further revised PSR on April 14, 2015 (hereinafter the "final PSR"). The final PSR no longer classified Chatman as a career offender, but continued to classify him as an armed career criminal based on his July 1996 conviction for drug offenses committed on three different days in June and July 1995. Final PSR ¶¶ 37, 45-47. The July 1996 conviction encompassed sales of cocaine to a confidential informant on June 7, 1995, and June 12, 1995, for which Chatman was charged with and pleaded guilty to separate counts of manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance.3 Id. ¶¶ 45-46 & n.5. The conviction also encompassed Chatman's guilty plea to a charge of criminal conspiracy to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance based on the July 20, 1995, seizure of drugs, drug paraphernalia,and cash from the residence where Chatman made the earlier drug sales. Id. ¶¶ 45 & n.5, 47. Although Chatman pleaded guilty to all three offenses in the same proceeding, the probation officer concluded the resulting conviction constituted "three previous convictions . . . for . . . a serious drug offense . . . committed on occasions different from one another" and therefore qualified Chatman as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Using the armed career criminal guideline, the PSR assigned Chatman an offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 262-327 months, plus 60 months consecutive on the § 924(c)(1) count, for an effective advisory Guidelines range of 322-387 months.

The case proceeded to sentencing on April 18, 2011. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel advised the Court that after reviewing the armed career criminal statute and speaking with the probation officer, he agreed Chatman's classification as an armed career criminal in the final PSR appeared correct. Sentencing Hr'g Tr. 5-6, Apr. 18, 2011. Defense counsel urged the Court to impose a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range and to run the sentence concurrently with the state sentence Chatman received in connection with the stabbing he committed while on bail following his arrest in this case. The Government, in contrast, advocated for a sentence at the top of the advisory Guidelines range and urged the Court to exercise its discretion to impose the sentence to run consecutively with Chatman's state prison term. After considering the parties' sentencing arguments, Chatman's statement to the Court, and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court sentenced Chatman to a total of 360 months, to be served consecutively to his state-court sentence.4

Chatman appealed, represented by new counsel,5 raising arguments concerning a portion of the jury instructions, the Court's failure to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) retroactively to Chatman's crack cocaine conviction, and Chatman's classification as an armed career criminal. On August 27, 2012, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Chatman's conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. United States v. Chatman, 487 F. App'x 769 (3d Cir. 2012). Following the United States Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on January 7, 2013, Chatman filed the instant motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on November 19, 2013. Chatman asserts eight separate grounds for relief, four based on ineffective assistance of counsel and four based on due process violations. Specifically, Chatman argues his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object to the proposed jury instructions, (2) failing to investigate whether Chatman would be sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 851 or to advise Chatman the Government was seeking enhanced penalties under that provision, (3) failing to object to the PSR, and (4) withdrawing an objection to Chatman's classification as an armed career criminal in the final PSR. Chatman further alleges his due process rights were violated because (1) the PSR contained false information regarding his criminal history, (2) the prosecution misled the Court about its authority to run Chatman's federal sentence concurrently with his state sentence, (3) as a result of the armed career criminal enhancement, this Court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of federal sentencing, and (4) the sentence imposed is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Government responded to Chatman's § 2255 motion on April 24, 2014.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner in federal custody may move the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence if "the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or . . . the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law[ ] or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). In evaluating a § 2255 motion, the court "must accept the truth of the movant's factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record" and "must order an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts unless the motion and files and records of the case show conclusively that the movant is not entitled to relief." Gov't of the V.I. v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59, 62 (3d Cir. 1989). Although the threshold for obtaining an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion is "reasonably low," see United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 546 (citation omitted), "vague and conclusory allegations contained in a § 2255 petition may be disposed of without further investigation by the District Court," United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Booth, 432 F.3d at 546 (suggesting a § 2255 motion must "allege[] . . . facts warranting relief under § 2255 that are not clearly resolved by the record" for an evidentiary hearing to be warranted (citation omitted)).

A defendant who seeks relief under § 2255 based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington by showing (1) his counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). As to the first prong, there is a "strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT