United States v. Scott

• Decision Date: 03 March 2020
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION No. 17-23 SECTION I
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SONNY SCOTT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SONNY SCOTT

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 17-23 SECTION I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

March 3, 2020

ORDER & REASONS

Petitioner Sonny Scott has moved¹ to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court previously reviewed Scott's claims for habeas relief and determined that an evidentiary hearing would be necessary to develop the record with respect to Scott's Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which implicates a Fourth Amendment claim of an unlawful search and seizure.² An evidentiary hearing was held on February 4, 2020 to resolve these issues. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

I.

On April 6, 2017, Scott pled guilty to a one-count superseding bill of information that charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).³ There was no plea agreement.

According to the government's factual basis, Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") agents were conducting surveillance of suspected drug distributors on and around Bullard Avenue in New Orleans—an area that they knew from prior experience to be a common location for drug trafficking—when they observed Scott at 10:15 P.M. meet with another individual in the rear parking lot of the Stay Express Inn located at 12340 South I-10 Service Road.⁴ Thereafter, the agents observed Scott quickly leave the parking lot on a motorcycle.⁵ Shortly following this encounter, the agents located Scott at the drive-thru of a nearby Taco Bell and approached him to conduct an investigatory stop and protective search.⁶ From a search of his person, the agents found approximately $250.00 in United States currency, three grams of heroin, approximately three grams of cocaine, numerous unidentified pills individually wrapped in clear plastic bags, and a loaded .38 caliber special Smith & Wesson firearm bearing serial number 44251.⁷ The factual basis also states that Scott has prior felony convictions and that he is therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm.⁸

Scott has three prior felony convictions in Orleans Parish, and he has served sentences of imprisonment for each one. On September 4, 1998, Scott pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance, and he wassentenced to two years of imprisonment.⁹ On October 22, 2002, Scott pled guilty to armed robbery and theft of goods, and he was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction and two years of imprisonment for the theft conviction, all to run concurrently.¹⁰ And on November 8, 2010, Scott pled guilty to attempted possession of a firearm by a felon, and he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment.¹¹

At Scott's rearraignment before this Court on April 6, 2017, Scott entered a guilty plea and admitted to the facts set forth in the factual basis.¹² The Court explained to Scott the elements of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) as follows:

First, that the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm as charged;

Second, that before the defendant possessed the firearm, the defendant had been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term in excess of one year, that is, a felony offense; and

Third, that the firearm the defendant possessed traveled in or affected interstate commerce; that is, that before the defendant possessed the firearm, it had traveled at some time from one state to another.¹³

Scott affirmed his understanding of the charge against him and the elements of the offense.¹⁴ Finding that Scott's plea was knowledgeable, voluntary, and had a basis in fact that contained all the elements of the crime charged in the superseding bill of information, the Court accepted Scott's plea and adjudged him guilty with respect to count one of the superseding bill of information.¹⁵

Following Scott's guilty plea, this Court sentenced Scott to a term of imprisonment of one hundred months.¹⁶ On July 13, 2017, Scott appealed his sentence, challenging both this Court's decision to depart upward from his advisory guideline range and the extent of the departure.¹⁷ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court's judgment,¹⁸ and on November 5, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied Scott's petition for a writ of certiorari.¹⁹ Thereafter, on April 8, 2019, Scott filed a § 2255 petition to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.²⁰

In his initial and first amended § 2255 petitions,²¹ which he filed pro se, Scott presented two grounds for relief. First, Scott asserted that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when she failed to "fully investigate the Fourth Amendment issue" and failed to challenge an allegedly unlawful search and seizure, failed tonegotiate a favorable plea, failed to adequately explain and allow him time to review his guilty plea, failed to file an appeal at his request.²² Scott further alleged that his trial counsel persuaded him to plead guilty with a promise that he would receive a different sentence than the sentence this Court imposed.²³ Second, Scott argued that the law enforcement officers who arrested him subjected him to an unlawful search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.²⁴

The Court reviewed Scott's initial and amended § 2255 petitions,²⁵ the government's responses, the record, and the applicable law, and determined that an evidentiary hearing would be necessary with respect to one of Scott's ineffective assistance claims—i.e. his trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence that DEA agents obtained as a result of the search of his person on the night of his arrest.²⁶ With respect to this claim, Scott asserts that he had asked his trial counsel to "challenge the unlawful search and seizure in [his] case," and that his counsel's failure to do so "induced an unknowing and involuntary plea" based on "evidence thatshould have been suppressed."²⁷ The Court concluded that Scott's other claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel were meritless.²⁸

The Court ordered that counsel be appointed to represent Scott in connection with the evidentiary hearing, and habeas counsel was enrolled on behalf of Scott on June 3, 2019.²⁹

While Scott and the government prepared for the evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), which clarified the mens rea requirement for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). In Rehaif, the Supreme Court explained that to convict a defendant under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2), the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew of his status as a person barred from possessing a firearm when he possessed it. Id. at 2194. Prior to Rehaif, neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit had held that the government was required to prove that the defendant knew of his prohibited status when he possessed the firearm. See id. at 2210-11 (Alito, J., dissenting) ("[A]ll the courts of appeals to address the question have held that [the mens rea requirement] does not apply to the defendant's status."); United States v. Rose, 587 F.3d 695, 705-06, n.9 (5th Cir. 2009).

Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif, Scott supplemented his § 2255 petition with two additional claims: that his conviction was constitutionally invalid and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment and sentenceagainst him.³⁰ The government did not oppose Scott's request to amend and supplement his § 2255 petition based on Rehaif, but it argues that such claims do not warrant postconviction relief because they are procedurally defaulted and the alleged constitutional errors are not structural errors that warrant automatic reversal of Scott's conviction.³¹

II.

Section 2255 is designed to remedy constitutional errors and other injuries a defendant could not have raised on direct appeal that would result in a miscarriage of justice if left unaddressed. United States v. Williamson, 183 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 1999). Relief may be granted under § 2255 to a defendant in federal custody if the defendant's sentence "was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, . . . the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).

Review of a conviction under § 2255 ordinarily is limited to questions of constitutional or jurisdictional magnitude. United States v. Scruggs, 691 F.3d 660, 666 (5th Cir. 2012). Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy that will not do service for a direct appeal. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998). A defendant is barred from raising constitutional claims for the first time on collateral review unless he demonstrates (1) cause for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal and (2) actual prejudice resulting from the error.³² Allen, 918 F.3d at 460.

An ineffective assistance of counsel claim, however, "may be brought in a collateral proceeding under § 2255, whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal." Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003). Such a claim can satisfy the cause and prejudice standard to overcome procedural default in a § 2255 petition. United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 227 (5th Cir. 2000).

In this case, Scott's Fourth Amendment claim "is procedurally barred unless he first succeeds on his Sixth Amendment claim." United States v. Alanis, 88 F. App'x 15, 22 (5th Cir. 2004). If Scott "succeeds on his Sixth Amendment claim, he will have established the validity of his Fourth Amendment claim because the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim are an element of his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim." Id.; see Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 375. Accordingly, the Court will examinewhether Scott has...