United States v. Goodman, Case No.: 3:14cr98/TKW/EMT
| Decision Date | 09 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:14cr98/TKW/EMT,Case No.: 3:18cv428/TKW/EMT |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TERRANCE D. GOODMAN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
This matter is before the court upon a "Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody" and an Amendment/Supplement thereto filed by Defendant Terrance D. Goodman ("Goodman") (ECF Nos. 704, 708). The Government filed a response (ECF No. 711), and Goodman filed a reply (ECF No. 716). Also pending is Goodman's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 717). The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After a review of the record and the arguments presented, the undersigned recommends that the § 2255 motion be denied without a hearing, see Rules 8(a) and (b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, and that the motion for summary judgment be denied as moot.
On December 16, 2014, Goodman and twelve others were charged in a superseding indictment1 (ECF No. 131) with offenses related to their alleged participation in a large-scale drug trafficking and money laundering conspiracy. Goodman was charged in Count One with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five (5) kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, and in Count Two with conspiracy to use a communication facility (a telephone and cellular telephone) to facilitate the commission of a felony. The Government states it based its case against Goodman on cooperating witnesses and law enforcement seizures (ECF No. 711 at 2, citing ECF Nos. 1, 2, 334, 496). This includes specific information about Goodman's alleged illicit activity provided by co-defendant Aston Ingram during post-arrest statements. An identical narrative description of Goodman's involvement is contained in both the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint and in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report ("PSR") (see ECF No. 2, Affidavit/Complaint ¶ 5; ECF No. 496, PSR ¶ 22).
On March 18, 2015, Goodman, represented by appointed attorney Stephen Sutherland, entered a guilty plea "as charged" before the undersigned magistrate judge (ECF Nos. 333-337) (this Report includes a detailed description of the plea colloquy, because most of Goodman's allegations relate, directly or indirectly, to whether he entered his plea voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly).
At the plea colloquy, as is routine, the court placed Goodman under oath and warned him that any false responses or false statements during the proceedings could lead to a separate prosecution for perjury (ECF No. 561 at 4). The court advised Goodman that he did not have to enter a plea of guilty and explained the rights he would be giving up by doing so (id. at 8-10). The court referenced the written Plea Agreement (ECF No. 335), which Goodman confirmed he had read in its entirety, reviewed with his attorney, and understood fully (ECF No. 561 at 10-11).2 The undersigned twice reiterated the penalties Goodman faced, as set forth in the agreement, to wit, a mandatory minimum term of ten years' imprisonment on Count One and up to a maximum of life, and a maximum term of four years' imprisonment on Count Two (id. at 11-12, 19). Twice, Goodman affirmed he understood these penalties (id. at 12, 19). Goodman also affirmed that Mr. Sutherland had discussed the Sentencing Guidelines with him, and he acknowledged he understood that counsel's predictions about how the guidelines would ultimately apply to his case were not binding (id.) Goodman's answers did not appear rote. When asked whether he knew parole had been abolished, and that he would serve approximately "day-for-day time" on a sentence of incarceration, Goodman responded that he did not know that. He nonetheless assured the court that this did not change his desire to enter a plea, and he did not need to talk to counsel about the new information (id. at 13-14). The undersigned specifically asked Goodman, "if this sentence is greater than what you are hoping for or expecting, do you understand that you do not have a right to withdraw your plea," and he responded "yes, ma'am" (id. at 16).
The court next inquired about the factual basis for the plea. Goodman admitted having signed the three-page "Factual Basis for Guilty Plea" (ECF No. 334) and, again, having initialed each page of the document (ECF No. 561 at 14). The Factual Basis identified Goodman as a transporter/distributer of cocaine for co-defendant Rodney Butler, and stated that Goodman had been engaged in this illicit conduct "for at least the past few years" (ECF No. 334 at 1). It noted that Goodman, alone and in conjunction with co-defendant Terrance Stone, mailed or transported cocaine/currency for co-defendant Butler, and that Goodman conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine for the benefit of the conspiracy (id. at 1-2). Goodman did not inquire about the contents of the Factual Basis or mention any "amendments." He agreed that he understood the amount of cocaine involved in the conspiracy was five kilograms or more and by entering a guilty plea he was giving up the right to have a jury determine the amount of cocaine for which he should be held accountable (ECF No. 561 at 14-15). Goodman also acknowledged having reviewed the relevant Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions with his attorney, namely, Criminal Offense Instructions 100, 99, and 98 (id. at 15-16; see also ECF No. 334 at 3). He agreed that he understood what the Government would be required to prove if the case went to trial (ECF No. 561 at 15-16). Mr. Sutherland, as an officer of the court, confirmed that the men had gone over the instructions (id. at 16; see also ECF No. 334 at 3).
The court specifically inquired, again as is customary, about Goodman's relationship with his attorney. Still under oath, Goodman specifically denied having any complaints at all about the way counsel had represented him (ECF No. 561 at 20). Goodman also affirmatively agreed he had had enough time to discuss his decision to plead guilty with counsel and was satisfied with the representation counsel had provided. Goodman affirmed that the written documents he had previously discussed with the court contained his entire agreement with the Government, and he denied having been pressured, threatened, or intimidated into entering the plea (id. at 18-20). Before Goodman formally entered his plea of guilty, the court offered him a final opportunity to consult with his attorney or ask questions of the court, and he declined. (id. at 20-21). In sum, there was nothing irregular or unusual about the thorough plea proceedings that would have alerted the court or counsel for either party that any of the issues Goodman now complains of existed. The undersigned therefore recommended that the plea of guilty be accepted, affording the usual period for objections (ECF No. 337). No objections were filed, and the district court adopted the recommendation that the plea of guilty be accepted (ECF No. 344).
A Draft PSR was filed on April 23, 2015. Goodman was characterized as a courier and distributor for the conspiracy and was held accountable for more than five (5) kilograms of cocaine, the quantity he had admitted during the plea colloquy (ECF No. 410, Draft PSR, ¶¶ 97, 111). His total offense level after a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, was 27 (id. at ¶¶ 125-134). Goodman's criminal history category was II (id. at ¶ 156). The applicable guidelines range of 78 to 97 months became 120 months due to the statutory mandatory minimum of ten years on Count One, of which Goodman had been advised during the plea colloquy (id. at ¶¶ 184, 185). The Probation Officer noted two, separate, pending state charges ("escape conspiracy (2013)" and "armed burglary (2014)"), and that if Goodman had been convicted of either of those before the conclusion of the instant federal offense, he would have qualified as a career offender with an advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months (id. at ¶ 207).
Mr. Sutherland filed a response to the Draft PSR on May 7, 2015, indicating there were no objections to the "score sheet calculations" (ECF No. 429). He also filed a motion to continue the May 28, 2015, sentencing due to counsel's unavailability (ECF No. 430). The court granted the motion, as well as a second motion to continue for the same reason (ECF Nos. 438, 463, 465).
The Final PSR was entered on the court's docket on June 30, 2015 (ECF No. 496). The sentencing calculations therein were unchanged from those in the Draft PSR. The offense conduct is described in paragraphs 17 through 93, and Goodman is mentioned in only two of those paragraphs. In Paragraph 31, Goodman is included in a list of six people whom lead-conspirator Rodney Butler used to transport cocaine from Texas to Florida (ECF No. 496, PSR ¶ 31). Paragraph 22 of the PSR tracks the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, rather than the factual basis for the guilty plea, and (as noted above) contains information provided to law enforcement by co-defendant Aston Ingram after Ingram's arrest. More specifically, Ingram stated that during 2014 Butler sold large amounts of cocaine to Goodman, and that Goodman intended to distribute it in the Panama City, Florida, area. Ingram stated that Goodman mailed some cocaine back to Panama City rather than personally transport it, and some of this cocaine was intercepted by law enforcement. On June 24 and 25, 2014, Goodman was supposed to receive two parcels totaling one-half kilogram of cocaine as part of the conspiracy, but law enforcement foiled the plan....
To continue reading
Request your trial