United States v. Fields
| Decision Date | 02 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:16-CR-266-FL-1,5:16-CR-266-FL-1 |
| Citation | 451 F.Supp.3d 456 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. Irvin FIELDS |
Bryan M. Stephany, Assistant US Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Wilmington, NC, Charity L. Wilson, Assistant US Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Raleigh, NC, for United States of America.
This matter comes before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. (DE 105). The issues raised have been fully briefed, including with benefit of defendant's reply, and in this posture are ripe for ruling.
On November 1, 2016, defendant was indicted for interference with interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 ("Count One"); brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) ("Count Two"); and unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 ("Count Three").1 At initial appearance December 7, 2016, the court ordered appointment of the Federal Public Defender to represent defendant, detained upon the government's motion.
On December 12, 2016, defendant appeared before a magistrate judge for detention hearing. Because defendant had questions regarding his waiver of detention hearing form, and he apparently wanted to speak with a third party before waiving detention hearing, the court granted defendant's request for continuance of three days, finding that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation. On December 15, 2016, defendant waived detention hearing.
Pursuant to the court's scheduling order entered December 7, 2017, arraignment was set for the court's term commencing February 14, 2017. On February 8, 2017, defendant moved through counsel to continue arraignment to allow more time to investigate his case. The court granted the motion, finding that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the resulting period of delay from speedy trial computation. Arraignment was set for the court's term commencing April 11, 2017.
On March 28, 2017, defendant again moved through appointed counsel to continue arraignment to allow continued investigation of the case, as well as additional time to receive and review discovery from the government. Again, the court granted the continuance motion, finding that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation. Arraignment was set for the court's term commencing June 13, 2017.
On April 12, 2017, defendant's counsel moved to withdraw and allow appointment of substitute counsel on grounds that the Federal Public Defender had discovered some conflict of interest. Good cause having been shown, the court allowed the motion. The next day, defendant's new attorney, from the court's approved panel, entered his appearance. Many others have followed as discussed below in this case now set for trial to commence May 27, 2020.
Defendant's dissatisfaction with representation provided first appears on the docket June 2, 2017, upon filing of defendant's own motion seeking appointment of a new lawyer to represent him. Defendant complained of fundamental disagreement with strategy espoused by his new counsel, who, he wrote, had encouraged him strongly to plead guilty. Defendant's motion was set for hearing June 15, 2017, at time of arraignment.
On June 5, 2017, the parties jointly moved through counsel to continue arraignment and hearing on motion to appoint new counsel. Counsel for the government had already arranged a prepaid vacation conflicting with the later set arraignment date of June 15, 2017, and counsel for the defendant was required then to appear on behalf of another client at a sentencing hearing in Greenville, North Carolina. Based upon these representations, the court granted the motion, finding that the ends of justice outweighed interests in a speedy trial and, again, excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation. The matter was continued to the next month's term, commencing July 11, 2017.
A letter manifesting defendant's continued complaints concerning appointed counsel was taken into the record July 10, 2017. At hearing July 12, 2017, defendant indicated his attorney was not on his side where defendant was desirous of pleading not guilty. Defense counsel represented that defendant had no confidence in him. Accordingly, the court ordered appointment of new counsel for defendant. The court continued defendant's arraignment to the court's term commencing September 12, 2017, finding the ends of justice outweighed interests in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation.
On July 17, 2017, defendant's next appointed attorney from the court's approved panel entered appearance. Request for discovery promptly was made. On September 1, 2017, defendant filed through counsel a consent motion to continue arraignment, requesting that counsel be given additional time to review voluminous discovery with defendant. Defendant sought continuance of his arraignment until the court's November term. The court granted the motion, again finding that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation.
On October 28, 2017, another consent motion to continue arraignment was filed by defendant through counsel, requesting additional time to review voluminous discovery with defendant. Counsel also made reference to his work in an unrelated state matter, involving first degree murder and arson charges, with that trial beginning November 13, 2017. Defendant requested arraignment be continued until the court's January 2018, term. The court granted the motion, finding that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation.
On November 22, 2017, defendant filed his own motion to appoint new counsel, asserting that his third appointed counsel was ineffective because he did not show up for a meeting and did not respond to defendant's correspondence. He also complained of evidence tampering by law enforcement. He requested desire for resolution of his case soon. Hearing was set on that motion at time of arraignment in January 2018.
Before that hearing, defendant filed his own motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation. His appointed attorney followed defendant's protestations about his effectiveness with counsel's own motion to withdraw, filed January 15, 2018, on grounds that his communications with defendant had so broken down that counsel was unable to take substantive action to represent defendant. At hearing January 16, 2018, defendant asserted that counsel was not communicating effectively with him, while counsel disagreed. The court granted the motion to withdraw, ordered appointment of new counsel, and continued arraignment, finding on this basis that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation. Defendant's arraignment was continued to the court's March 2018, term.
On January 22, 2018, defendant's next appointed attorney from the court's approved panel entered his appearance in this case. On February 5, 2018, counsel withdrew on his client's behalf that pro se motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation filed January 10, 2018.
On March 6, 2018, defendant filed without any objection by the government a motion to continue, noting that counsel had received written and audio-visual discovery from the government, that counsel was new to the case, and that he required additional time to more fully review the discovery with the defendant and advise the defendant so that he could make an informed decision about how to plead at his arraignment. Defendant, through his new counsel, sought more time also to consider any case resolution short of trial. The court granted the motion to continue arraignment, finding in this instance, too, that the ends of justice outweighed the interests of defendant and the public in a speedy trial and excluding the period of delay from speedy trial computation. Arraignment was continued over to the court's April 10, 2018, term.
The week before that term commenced, defendant filed motion to suppress eyewitness identification. That motion, filed April 3, 2018, was followed the next day by defendant's motion to continue arraignment, requesting that the court rule on his motion to suppress prior to entering his plea. The court granted the motion to continue on April 5, 2018, continuing arraignment to a date no sooner than 45 days after the court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress. The court found that any delay resulting from this continuance was excluded from the Speedy Trial Act for reasons noted.
On April 11, 2018, and May 3, 2018, the government sought, without objection from defendant, modest time extensions to respond to defendant's motion to suppress. In support of the motions, counsel for the government represented that he had been out of state for most of the week of April 1, 2018, that counsel spent several days of the week of April 9, 2018, in hearings or meeting with law enforcement and in interviews on other cases, appeared in three suppression hearings scheduled for April 30, 2018, and anticipated appearing in a short trial commencing May 7, 2018. The court granted both motions for extension of time, finding that the ends of justice served by the continuances outweighed the interest of the public and the defendant in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial