United States v. Savoie
| Decision Date | 25 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION 17-164-SDD-EWD |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RALPH WILLARD SAVOIE |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RALPH WILLARD SAVOIE
CRIMINAL ACTION No. 17-164-SDD-EWD
United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
January 25, 2023
RULING
SHELLY D. DICK, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255[1]filed by Defendant, Ralph Willard Savoie (“Defendant”). The Government has filed an Opposition[2] to this motion, to which Defendant filed a Reply.[3] In his Section 2255 motion, the Defendant claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel on several issues that subjected him to a substantially higher sentence than he should have received. For the reasons below, Defendant's motion shall be denied.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
On March 26, 2018, Defendant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to a Bill of Information charging him with one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.[4]On November 13, 2018, Defendant was sentenced to 168 months in prison, following a lengthy hearing wherein the Court addressed several objections to the Pre-Sentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”),[5] and the Defendant took the stand to testify under oath.[6]Pursuant to the facts and recommendations in the PSR, and after hearing arguments and taking evidence on Defendant's objections, the Court found that several sentencing enhancements applied based on the nature of Defendant's criminal conduct.[7] The Court also determined that Defendant perjured himself during his testimony at the sentencing hearing by contradicting several statements made under oath at his re-arraignment hearing and in his plea agreement.[8] The Court referred the consideration of perjury charges to the United States Attorney's Office.[9] Based on Defendant's sentencing testimony, he lost points for Acceptance of Responsibility and received points for Obstruction of Justice,[10] which resulted in a total offense level increase of five points that greatly affected his guideline range.
With the assistance of same defense counsel, Defendant appealed the Court's sentence and judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; this appeal was dismissed over Defendant's opposition.[11] His petition for certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court.[12] Defendant timely filed this Section 2255 motion.
II. PARTIES ARGUMENTS, GENERALLY
Defendant contends his sentence and judgment should be vacated because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. First, Defendant claims
his counsel was ineffective: (1) by failing to object to the obstruction of justice enhancement and the loss of acceptance of responsibility;[13] (2) for coercing him into pleading guilty and agreeing to the factual basis set forth in the plea agreement over Defendant's objections; (3) by failing to argue the error of the Court's “perceived discrepancies” between Defendant's sworn statements at his re-arraignment and the sworn testimony he gave at his sentencing hearing due to counsel's “conflicting interests of self protection”;[14] (4) by failing to persuade the Court that his sentence was wrongfully enhanced because his conduct was not a violation of securities law under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(19)(A);[15] and (5) by raising only a frivolous claim on appeal due to counsel's purported conflict of self-protection.[16]
The Government opposes Defendant's motion, arguing that Defendant: (1) offers no evidence to support his claims that counsel coerced his guilty plea; (2) his commission of perjury was his choice; (3) Defendant's enhancements for violations of securities law were proper; (4) ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not generally cognizable on appeal but are more properly brought under Section 2255, which Defendant has done; and (5) Defendant has failed to carry his burden of proving either prong under Strickland for his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.[17]
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Section 2255 Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal inmate can file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentence if, “that sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” The Fifth Circuit has stated that, “[r]elief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised in a direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.”[18]
“When a § 2255 motion is filed, the district court must first conduct a preliminary review.”[19] “If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion.”[20] If the motion raises a non-frivolous claim to relief, the court must order the government to file a response or to take other appropriate action.[21] After reviewing the government's response along with any other relevant materials, the court must determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.[22] An evidentiary hearing must be held unless “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”[23] No evidentiary hearing is required, however, if the
movant fails to produce any “independent indicia of the likely merit of [his] allegations.”[24]For reasons set forth herein, not hearing is warranted on this motion.
When a defendant has exhausted his right to appeal, his conviction and sentence are presumed to be fair and final.[25] Therefore, an issue raised for the first time in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will be considered only if the defendant shows “cause” for his failure to previously raise the issue and “actual prejudice” resulting from the alleged error.[26] Vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient to raise a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.[27]
The pleadings of a pro se prisoner litigant are reviewed under a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney and are provided a liberal construction.[28]Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is still required to provide sufficient facts to support his claims, and “mere conclusory allegations on a critical issue are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue.”[29] Accordingly, “[a]bsent evidence in the record, a court cannot consider a habeas petitioner's bald assertion on a critical issue in his pro se petition ... to be of probative evidentiary value.”[30]
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Defendant's sole basis for the Section 2255 claims he asserts is the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial/appellate counsel. Strickland v. Washington articulates
the standard for this claim.[31] In Strickland, the Supreme Court held that, to obtain relief, a defendant must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.[32] A deficient performance is one in which the attorney's actions were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms.[33] A defendant must prove both prongs to succeed in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.[34]
To prevail on the deficiency prong, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's conduct failed to meet the constitutional minimum guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.[35]“[T]he defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”[36] In analyzing counsel's performance, a reviewing court must take into account the reasonableness of counsel's actions under prevailing professional norms and in light of all of the circumstances.[37] The reviewing court must “judge ... counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct.”[38] Furthermore, a petitioner must overcome a strong presumption that defense counsel's conduct falls within a wide range of reasonable representation.[39] “[I]t is all too easy to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable in the harsh light of hindsight.”[40] With these principles in mind, federal habeas courts presume
that trial strategy is objectively reasonable unless clearly proven otherwise.[41]
Prejudice occurs when there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.[42] A reasonable probability is one that is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.[43]Furthermore, “[t]he petitioner must ‘affirmatively prove,' not just allege, prejudice.”[44] This standard requires a “substantial,” not just “conceivable,” likelihood of a different result.[45]In making this determination as to prejudice, courts must review the record to determine “the relative role that the alleged trial errors played in the total context of [the] trial.”[46]Thus, conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, with no showing of effect on the proceedings, do not raise a constitutional issue sufficient to support federal habeas relief.[47]
1. Coercion to Plead Guilty/Perjury at Sentencing Hearing
At the beginning of his re-arraignment hearing, the Court explained to the Defendant that he was under oath; thus, if he lied in answering any of the Court's questions, he could be charged with perjury; the Defendant stated that he understood this warning.[48] Later during this hearing, Defendant was asked the following about his attorney:
THE COURT: YOU HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY MR. WYNNE IN THIS CASE?
THE DEFENDANT: YES, I HAVE.
THE COURT: AND HAVE YOU BEEN VERY CONFIDENT, OR HAVE YOU BEEN FULLY CONFIDENT IN HIS ABILITY TO GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVI[C]E?
THE DEFENDANT: YES.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM?
THE DEFENDANT: YES, I DO....
To continue reading
Request your trial