United States v. Miles
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 4:18-cr-00011 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PHILLIP DAEKWON MILES, Defendant / Petitioner |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
On November 28, 2022, Phillip Daekwon Miles, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 1486. The motion was conditionally filed by the Clerk, and Miles was advised that he needed to sign the motion under penalty of perjury, and further was advised that his motion appeared to have been filed outside the one-year limitations period set forth in § 2255(f). ECF No. 1492. On December 22, 2022, Miles filed an amended § 2255 motion. ECF No. 1502. The government responded to Miles' motion on April 28, 2023, and Miles replied on June 7, 2023. ECF Nos. 1527, 1534. After reviewing the briefing, the record, and relevant case law, the court DENIES in part Miles' motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The court will appoint counsel to represent Miles at an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Miles asked his attorney to file a notice of appeal on his behalf and if so, the timing of any such request.
On November 6, 2018, Miles, along with eleven codefendants, was named in a 40-count superseding indictment charging offenses related to racketeering. According to the statement of facts (SOF) signed by Miles, he was a member of a criminal organization known as the Rollin 60s Crips (“Rollin 60s”), which is a street gang. Since at least 2015, the Rollin 60s were active in the Western District of Virginia and engaged in criminal activity, including murder and attempted murder, assault resulting in bodily injury, assault with a dangerous weapon, robbery, obstruction of justice, drug distribution and trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those crimes. SOF, ECF No. 983 at 1.
In 2016, members of the Rollin 60s joined forces with another gang, known as the Milla Bloods (“Millas”) to facilitate their criminal activities at the expense of a rival gang known as the Billy Bloods (“Billys”). Id. at 4. In June 2016, Miles agreed with other members of the Rollin 60s and the Millas to shoot and potentially kill two individuals, Dwight Harris and Armonti Womack, in an apartment complex. Miles and the other gang members walked into the apartment complex where Harris and Womack were talking with two members of the Millas, whose job it was to distract them. Miles and the other gang members began shooting, injuring Womack and a member of the Millas, Tanasia Coleman. Id. at 3.
In August 2016, members of the Rollin 60s, including Miles, and the Millas gathered in Danville, Virginia. Marcus Davis, the head of the Rollin 60s, and DaShawn Anthony, the head of the Millas, agreed to work together to mutually benefit their respective drug enterprises. Davis also informed the Rollin 60s that they had authority to kill members of the: Billys on sight, including the leader of the Billys, Stevie Wallace. Id. at 4.
On August 20, 2016, members of the Rollin 60s, including Miles, and the Millas met in the apartment of one of their members. The group planned to lure Wallace and other members of the Billys to the apartment complex where gang members were fanned out in the complex and an adjoining parking lot'with plans to shoot Wallace to death. At 10:30 that evening, a van pulled into the apartment parking lot and gang members started shooting. The passenger in the van, Christopher odey, was killed in the gunfire, while the driver, Justion Wilson, was not injured- Id. at 5- Miles and other gang members hid in the apartment of a woman who lived in the complex. In the days following the shooting, Miles gave his firearm to a member of the Millas to sell in order to eliminate evidence of his participation in the murder. Id. at 6.
A few days after the murder of Christopher Motley, Miles and other gang members were riding in Miles' vehicle in the Rollin 60s neighborhood. As they passed a convenience store, Miles pointed out two members of the Billys coming out of the convenience store. In accordance with the directive of gang leaders Davis and Anthony to shoot and kill Billys on sight, passengers in the car began shooting at the members of the Billys and one of the gang members got out of the car and chased after the Billys. After the gan; member returned to the car, Miles drove the vehicle away and the gang members hid from police. Id.
The SOF further sets out that Miles conspired with others to distribute and did, in fact, distribute, marijuana on behalf of the racketeering enterprise. Id. at 5. Miles stipulated to the truth of the SOF and acknowledged that if the matter had proceeded to trial, the United States would have proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 7.
Miles was charged in 19 counts of the indictment. Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 207 at 1-18. On October 22, 2019, Miles entered into an agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), in which he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 11 of the superseding indictment. Count 1 charged him with racketeering conspiracy, with special sentencing factors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1963. Plea Agreement, ECF No. 981 at 1-2. Count 11 charged that Miles did knowingly use, carry, brandish, and discharge a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence for which he could be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1959(a)(1) as set forth in Count 10 of the indictment, and in the course of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), caused the death of a person through the use of a firearm, which killing is defined as murder in 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Count 10 of the indictment charged Miles with violent crime in aid of racketeering, to-wit: murder of Christopher Lamont Motley in violation of Virginia Code §§ 18.2-32 and 18.2-18, all in violation of 18 U.S-C- §§ 2 and 1959(a)(1).[1] Plea Agreement, ECF No. 981 at 2; Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 207 at 13-14.
The government agreed to dismiss any remaining counts at sentencing. Plea Agreement, ECF No. 981 at 3. Both counts carried maximum penalties of life imprisonment. Id. at 1-2. The parties agreed to a sentencing range of 156 to 180 months. Id. at 4. As part of the agreement, Miles waived his right to appeal except for any issue which could not be waived by law and waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence unless the attack was based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 8.
On September 9, 2020, Miles was sentenced to 60 months on Count 1 and 120 months on Count 11, with the sentences to run consecutively for a total of 180 months. His term of incarceration is to be followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. J., ECF No. 1331- Miles did not appeal his sentence. ' In his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, Miles argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in two respects. First, he argues that his attorney was ineffective when he did not move to dismiss Count 11 on the ground that the underlying predicate offense is not a crime of violence. Second, he argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal when Miles asked him to do so.
The government counters that (1) Miles waived his claims in the plea agreement; (2) Miles' motion is untimely filed and procedurally barred; (3) Miles' claim that Count 11 is unconstitutional is without merit; and (4) Miles' counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal.
To prevail on a claim for relief under § 2255, a petitioner must prove: (1) that his sentence was “imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States”; (2) that “the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence”; or (3) that “the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A petitioner collaterally attacking his conviction or sentence via a § 2255 petition bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled to relief. White v. United States, 352 F.Supp.2d 684, 687 (E.D. Va. 2004) ().
The government argues that Miles waived the claims he is attempting to bring in his § 2255 motion. As part of the plea agreement, Miles agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence or conviction or to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence. The language of the waiver is broad: “I waive any right I may have to collaterally attack, in any future proceeding, any order issued in this matter, unless such attack is based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and I agree I will not file any document which seeks to disturb any such order, unless such filing is based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Plea Agreement, ECF No. 981 at 8. Miles further acknowledged that if he filed any court document, other than an appeal based on an issue not otherwise waived in the agreement, or an appeal based on an issue that cannot be waived by law, or a collateral attack based on ineffective assistance of counsel, seeking to disturb any order imposed in the case, his actions would constitute a failure to comply with a provision of the agreement. Id.
A waiver of appeal and collateral attack is valid if the waiver was knowing and voluntary. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a properly conducted Rule 11 colloquy establishes the validity of the waiver....
To continue reading
Request your trial