United States v. Maley
| Decision Date | 10 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 17-1225 RB/KK,Cr. No. 13-3696 RB/KK |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. MATTHEW DUKE MALEY, Defendant/Petitioner. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant/Petitioner Matthew Duke Maley's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 290) ("Section 2255 Motion"), filed December 13, 2017. On January 2, 2018, United States District Judge Robert Brack referred the case to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (b)(3) and Virginia Beach Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1990). (Doc. 295.) Having meticulously considered the parties' submissions, the record, and the relevant law, and for the reasons set forth below, I recommend that Mr. Maley's Section 2255 Motion be DENIED.1
A grand jury charged Mr. Maley, Aubrey Savage, and Jennifer Sanders with distributing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, in a two-count indictment filed in this Court on November 13, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The second count of theindictment pertained to Mr. Maley, and charged that Mr. Maley and Ms. Sanders "unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally distributed . . . 50 grams and more of methamphetamine" on August 1, 2013 in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. (Id.) On the same date the indictment was filed, the Court issued a warrant for Mr. Maley's arrest, and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") began searching for him in several states. (Doc. 163 at 51-52.)
As described in more detail below, New Mexico and Arizona law enforcement officers tried to execute the warrant for Mr. Maley's arrest in Tucson, Arizona on November 17, 2013. Although the officers did not find Mr. Maley that day, they did observe firearms and other incriminating items in plain view in his travel trailer, which they seized and towed to the Tucson FBI office. Two days later, United States Magistrate Judge Bernardo Velasco, sitting in Tucson, issued a search warrant for the trailer. (Doc. 341-1.) In executing the search warrant, officers discovered documents and additional firearms that the Government used against Mr. Maley at trial.
Mr. Maley was arrested in Las Cruces, New Mexico on December 4, 2013. (Doc. 165 at 200, 207, 213.) Jared Abrams and Steven Almanza entered appearances as Mr. Maley's counsel on December 6 and 19, 2013, respectively. (Docs. 6, 15.)
On March 19, 2014, a grand jury issued a fourteen-count superseding indictment in this case. (Doc. 48.) Six counts pertained to Mr. Maley, all charging conduct in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. (Id.) Count 1 charged Mr. Maley, Ms. Savage, and Ms. Sanders with conspiring to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine from about June 7, 2013 through August 21, 2013, contrary to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C § 846. (Id. at 1-2.) Count 9 mirrored the second count of the original indictment. (Id. at 3.) Count 10 charged Mr. Maley and Ms. Sanders with distributing 50 grams and more of methamphetamine on August 21, 2013. (Id. at 4.) Count 11 charged Mr. Maley, Jose Luis Niño, and Candice Marie Carpenter with conspiringto distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine on or about December 4, 2013. (Id.) Count 12 charged Mr. Maley, Mr. Niño, and Ms. Carpenter with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine on or about December 4, 2013. (Id.) Finally, Count 14 charged Mr. Maley, a convicted felon, with possession of ten listed firearms from April through August 2013, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Id. at 5-6.)
Mr. Abrams and Mr. Almanza moved to withdraw as Mr. Maley's counsel on July 15, 2014, six days before his trial was to begin. (Docs. 83, 87.) The next day, the Court continued the trial to September 22, 2014 and allowed Mr. Maley seven days in which to secure new counsel. (Doc. 90 at 2; Doc. 112.) On September 17, 2014, noting that no new counsel had entered an appearance on Mr. Maley's behalf, the Court denied Mr. Abrams' and Mr. Almanza's motion to withdraw. (Doc. 128.) Mr. Maley then moved the Court to continue the trial again, indicating that his counsel of choice was willing to represent him at trial and intended to enter an appearance but was unavailable to try the case on September 22, 2014. (Doc. 129.) On September 19, 2014, the Court denied Mr. Maley's motion to continue. (Doc. 136.)
Mr. Maley's trial took place from September 22, 2014 to September 25, 2014. (Doc. 141-42, 163-65, 167.) Ms. Sanders, Mr. Niño, and Ms. Carpenter, all of whom had entered into plea agreements with the Government, testified against Mr. Maley. (Doc. 164 at 128-72, 197-246; Doc. 165 at 101-40.) At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Mr. Maley guilty of the crimes charged in Counts 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of the superseding indictment. (Doc. 146.) The Court granted Mr. Maley's motion for a judgment of acquittal as to Count 10. (Doc. 149.)
The Court appointed Mary Stillinger to represent Mr. Maley at sentencing and on appeal on October 27, 2014. (Doc. 154.) On January 21, 2016, the Court sentenced Mr. Maley to 262 months' imprisonment on Counts 1, 9, 11, and 12, and 120 months' imprisonment on Count 14,the terms to run concurrently for a total term of imprisonment of 262 months. (Doc. 193 at 3.) Mr. Maley appealed, arguing that the Court had deprived him of his right to be represented by his counsel of choice when it denied his September 17, 2014 request for a continuance. United States v. Maley, 681 F. App'x 685, 687 (10th Cir. 2017). The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed Mr. Maley's conviction on March 9, 2017. Id. at 688.
Meanwhile, on April 2, 2014, a grand jury issued charges against Mr. Maley in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. (Cr. No. 14-637, Doc. 1.) In that case, Mr. Maley was charged with one count of being a convicted felon in possession of several firearms, one count of possessing with intent to distribute less than five grams of methamphetamine, and one count of possessing several firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, all at or near Tucson, Arizona. (Id. at 1-5.) The indictment further provided for forfeiture of the listed firearms upon conviction. (Id. at 5-7.)
On November 7, 2016, in the District of Arizona, Mr. Maley filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his trailer in November 2013. (Cr. No. 14-637, Doc. 30.) United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Bowman held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on February 1 and 13, 2017, and, on March 3, 2017, issued a Report and Recommendation ("Recommendation") in which she recommended that the motion be denied. (Cr. No. 14-637, Docs. 55, 61, 76, 78); United States v. Maley, 2017 WL 8941236, at *6 (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2017). Judge Bowman first concluded that officers' initial entry into Mr. Maley's trailer violated the Fourth Amendment because, although the officers had a warrant for his arrest, they did not have reason to believe he was in the trailer on the morning of November 17, 2013. Maley, 2017 WL 8941236 at *4-*5. However, Judge Bowman further concluded that the evidence obtained from the trailer was not subject tosuppression because it would inevitably have been discovered during an inventory search following officers' lawful seizure of the trailer pursuant to administrative forfeiture. Id. at *5-*6.
Mr. Maley filed an Objection to Judge Bowman's Recommendation on April 3, 2017, to which the Government responded on April 14, 2017. (Cr. No. 14-637, Docs. 84, 86, 87.) On May 8, 2017, United States District Judge Frank Zapata issued an order sustaining Mr. Maley's Objection and granting his motion to suppress. (Cr. No. 14-637, Doc. 93); United States v. Maley, 2017 WL 1830483 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2017). In his Order, Judge Zapata reviewed the portion of Judge Bowman's Recommendation regarding officers' initial entry into Mr. Maley's trailer for clear error because neither side had objected to it. Maley, 2017 WL 1830483 at *2. Judge Zapata found no clear error with respect to this portion of the Recommendation. Id.
However, in light of Mr. Maley's Objection, Judge Zapata reviewed the portion of Judge Bowman's Recommendation regarding the inevitable discovery doctrine de novo. Id. Judge Zapata rejected this portion of the Recommendation, holding that: (1) officers' seizure of Mr. Maley's trailer was unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § 981(b)(2); and thus, (2) a subsequent inventory search of the trailer would have been impermissible and the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply to evidence obtained as a result of the seizure. Id. at *2-*5. Judge Zapata therefore concluded that "[t]he exclusionary rule prohibits the [G]overnment from introducing in its case-in-chief evidence obtained as a result of the agents' unlawful entry into and seizure of [Mr. Maley's] trailer." Id. at *5. On the Government's motion, the court dismissed the District of Arizona indictment against Mr. Maley on June 2, 2017. (Cr. No. 14-637, Docs. 95, 96.)
Mr. Maley filed the Section 2255 Motion at issue on December 13, 2017, pro se. (Doc. 290.) In his motion, Mr. Maley claims that: (1) his New Mexico trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of officers'entry into, and seizure and search of, his trailer; (2) officers' entry into, and seizure and search of, the trailer violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and, (3) his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the suppression issue on direct appeal. (Id. at 13-21.) The Government responded in opposition to Mr. Maley's Section 2255 Motion on March 6, 2018, (Doc. 298); Mr. Maley filed a pro se reply in support of it on May 7, 2018, (Doc. 309); the Government...
To continue reading
Request your trial