United States v. Dotstry

• Decision Date: 10 June 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 16-CR-346 (SRN/HB)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENDRICK LEDELLE DOTSTRY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENDRICK LEDELLE DOTSTRY, Defendant.

Case No. 16-CR-346 (SRN/HB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

June 10, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Andrew Dunne, United States Attorney's Office, 300 S. 4th St., Ste. 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Plaintiff.

Keala C. Ede and Sarah R. Weinman, Office of the Federal Defender, 200 S. 4th St., 107 U.S. Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendant, on a limited appointment.

Kendrick Ledelle Dotstry, Reg. No. 09196-041, FCI-Sandstone K-3, P.O. Box 1000, Sandstone, MN 55072, Pro Se.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kendrick Ledelle Dotstry's Pro Se Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 124]; his Amended Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 136]¹; his Pro Se Motion for Discovery [Doc. No. 160]; and his Pro Se Supplemental Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 [Doc. No. 161].² Also before the Court is the Government's Motion to Supplement the Record [Doc. No. 183].

Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings therein, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Dotstry's § 2255 motions and his Request for a Certificate of Appealability, denies as moot his request for discovery, and grants the Government's motion.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

In December 2016, the Government charged Dotstry with unlawful possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Indictment [Doc. No. 1].) While Dotstry was initially represented by counsel from the Federal Defender's Office, in January 2017, he retained F. Clayton Tyler as counsel. (Notice of Appearance [Doc. No. 9].) Mr. Tyler had previously represented Dotstry in connection with two prior federal offenses. (See Nov. 3, 2017 Hr'g Tr. [Doc. No. 73] at 13-15.)

The conduct underlying the unlawful possession charge occurred on November 19, 2016, when police responded to emergency calls reporting a man with a red truck who was breaking windows and waiving and pointing a gun at guests in the vicinity of a baby shower. See United States v. Dotstry, 745 Fed. App'x 662, 663 (8th Cir. 2018). When officers arrived, they observed a man in a red truck, later identified as Dotstry, matching the suspect's description and vehicle, leaving the scene. (Id.) After officers stopped him, and after someinitial reluctance on the part of Dotstry to exit the vehicle, he complied and admitted that he had a firearm in the center console of the truck. (Id.) Officers retrieved the loaded gun from the vehicle. (Id.) In addition, during a search incident to arrest, officers confiscated a controlled substance on his person. (PSR [Doc. No. 79] ¶ 7.)

As to the prior felony convictions that rendered Dotstry ineligible to possess a firearm, in July 2000, he was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 57 months. United States v. Dotstry, No. 99-cr-383 (JRT/FLN), (July 26, 2000 Minutes [Doc. No. 33]); (PSR ¶ 42). After serving more than a year of imprisonment, he was released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and his three-year term of supervised release began on November 12, 2004. (PSR ¶ 42.) Subsequently, in October 2009, Dotstry was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 90 months. United States v. Dotstry, 08-cr-344(3)(MJD/HB), (Judgment [Doc. No. 155]); (PSR ¶ 49). After serving more than a year of imprisonment for this offense, he was released from BOP custody, and his five-year term of supervised release began on April 28, 2015. (PSR ¶ 49.) As noted, Mr. Tyler represented Dotstry on both of these federal cases. (See Nov. 3, 2017 Hr'g Tr. at 13-15.)

Because Dotstry had committed the November 2016 unlawful possession offense while on supervised release from his 2009 drug conspiracy conviction, U.S. Probation also filed a petition for revocation of his supervised release in November 2016, which the Court granted. Dotstry, 08-cr-344(3)(MJD/HB), (Order Granting Pet. [Doc. No. 225].)

In June 2017, Dotstry pleaded guilty to the unlawful possession charge. At the hearingon his change of plea, Dotstry testified regarding the factual basis for his plea, stating in relevant part:

Government: Okay? I want to focus your attention on November 19th, 2016. That's the date that Minneapolis police officers recovered a loaded Sig Sauer 9-millimeter handgun from a vehicle that you were driving. Do you remember that incident?

Mr. Dotstry: Yes, I do.

Government: All right. And while prior to November 19th, 2016, you incurred two federal convictions that are listed in the Indictment, correct?

Mr. Dotstry: That's correct.

Government: One was in 2000 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and one was in 2000—do you have the Indictment? May I have that? Thank you.

Ready to go?

Mr. Dotstry: Yeah.

Government: Okay. And one was in 2009 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base. Correct?

Defense Counsel: He thinks that the first one was in 1999.

Government: Well, the sentencing date was in 2000.

Defense Counsel: That's correct.

Mr. Dotstry: Correct.

Government: You know that by sustaining those two felony convictions, you were ineligible for possessing a firearm, correct?

Mr. Dotstry: Correct.

(June 13, 2017 Plea Hr'g Tr [Doc. No. 51] at 17-18.)

In July 2017, Mr. Tyler filed a motion to withdraw as counsel due to the deteriorationof the attorney-client relationship. (Mot. to Withdraw [Doc. No. 44].) The Court granted Mr. Tyler's motion to withdraw, (Aug. 3, 2017 Minutes [Doc. No. 53]), and appointed Mr. Robert M. Paule to represent Dotstry. (Aug. 22, 2017 Order for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. No. 54].)

In September 2017, Dotstry sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily [Doc. No. 62]. At the evidentiary hearing on Dotstry's motion, he argued that his former counsel had provided ineffective assistance, such that he felt "coerced" into pleading guilty. (See Nov. 3, 2017 Hr'g Tr. at 26, 42-43.) Based on the full record before it, which included Dotstry's testimony, the Court denied his motion. (Nov. 13, 2017 Order [Doc. No. 76] at 11-15.)

Prior to sentencing, Dotstry met with the U.S. Probation Officer charged with conducting his presentence investigation and provided the following statement regarding his acceptance of responsibility:

I, Kendrick Dotstry, hereby state the following:

I admit that on November 19th, 2016, in the District of Minnesota, I illegally possessed a firearm when I was not legally allowed to do so. Specifically, I have two previous federal narcotics convictions which predate November 19th, 2016, and I was aware that it was illegal for me to possess the firearm on November 19th, 2016. I accept responsibility for my actions, and I want to let the court know that I knew what I was doing was wrong.

(PSR ¶ 12.)

On December 21, 2017, the Court held a combined sentencing and final revocation hearing. Because Dotstry challenged the PSR's recommendation for an enhanced offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), the Court also conducted an evidentiary hearing. TheCourt found that a four-level enhancement was appropriate because Dotstry possessed the loaded firearm in connection with other felony offenses, which also included state charges for second degree assault, terroristic threats, and fifth degree possession of a controlled substance. (Dec. 21, 2017 Sentencing Hr'g Tr. [Doc. No. 102] at 26.) The Government did not oppose Dotstry's request for a Guideline reduction for acceptable of responsibility, which the Court granted. (Id. at 28-30.) The Court sentenced Dotstry to terms of imprisonment of 96 months for the unlawful possession offense, (see Judgment [Doc. No. 89] at 2), and 30 months for the supervised release violation, see Dotstry, 08-cr-344(3), (Judgment [Doc. No. 253] at 2), to be served concurrently.

On Dotstry's behalf, Mr. Paule filed a direct appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the substantive reasonableness of his unlawful possession sentence under § 922(g). Dotstry, 745 Fed. App'x at 663. Specifically, he argued that the Court failed to give weight to his disclosure of the firearm to the police, as well as several mitigating factors in his personal history. Id. The Eighth Circuit denied his appeal, finding that the Court properly exercised its discretion in weighing the relevant factors and in the imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence. Id. Dotstry then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied on October 7, 2019. Dotstry v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 278 (2019).

B. Pro Se Motion to Vacate Under § 2255

In December 2019, Dotstry filed the instant pro se motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment were violated because he was "punished in two proceedings"—theunlawful possession charge in the 2016 case, and the violation of supervised release stemming from the 2008 case—based on the same criminal conduct. (Def.'s Pro Se § 2255 Mem. [Doc. No. 125] at 4-8.) In addition, he stated his intention to later raise an additional issue, within the filing deadline, involving ineffective assistance of counsel. (Def.'s Pro Se § 2255 Mot. at 2 ¶ 11; Def.'s Pro Se § 2255 Reply [Doc. No. 132] at 1.)

In June 2020, with the assistance of appointed counsel, Dotstry filed an Amended § 2255 motion, arguing that Rahaif v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), established a new rule of law that invalidates his conviction. (Def.'s Am. § 2255 Mot. at 1-2.) Dotstry also filed a Pro Se Reply Memorandum, in which he stated that if the filing of his § 2255 motion foreclosed him from raising an ineffective...