United States v. Stubblefield

Decision Date20 March 2013
Docket NumberCriminal No. 08–171(RCL).
Citation931 F.Supp.2d 118
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Mark STUBBLEFIELD, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Catherine K. Connelly, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Jonathan Jeffress, Federal Public Defender, Washington, DC, for Mark Stubblefield.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Mark Stubblefield's pro se Motion [109] to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant claims he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and requests that the Court order an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he is entitled to relief under § 2255. Upon consideration of the Motion and supporting Memorandum [109], the Government's Opposition [114], the defendant's Reply [116], the entire record herein, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the Motion for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUNDA. Defendant's Underlying Offenses

Defendant's criminal conduct in this matter began with the robbery of Washington First Bank at 1500 K Street, N.W., in the District of Columbia on January 29, 2008, and lasted until his arrest on May 13, 2008. Presentence Investigation Report ¶¶ 4–5, Revised May 7, 2009, ECF No. 69 (“PSR”). On January 29, March 26, and April 7, 2008, the Washington First Bank was robbed by a man witnesses described on each occasion as a very short black man with an unusual facial complexion. See Opp'n 2, ECF No. 114 (citing trial transcripts). On March 21 and April 11, 2008, a witness-described short black man with an unusual facial complexion robbed United Bank at 1875 I Street, N.W. Id. at 4–5. Eyewitnesses at the respective institutions stated that the same individual perpetrated the repeated offenses. Id. at 3, 5. Following the second robbery at Washington First Bank on March 26, 2008, a witness-described very short black man with “a mark or scar on his face” attempted to rob Urban Trust Bank at 1350 I Street, N.W. Id. at 7. Additionally, on April 21, 2008, a witness-described short black man with an usual facial complexion robbed Commerce Bank at 1753 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Id. at 6. In addition to the similar stature and “unusual facial complexion,” witnesses frequently described the perpetrator as having a “raspy” voice and initiating the robbery or attempted robbery by passing a handwritten note to a teller. See id. at 3–7. The perpetrator procured a total of $15,644 as a result of these bank robberies. PSR ¶ 15.

B. The Criminal Investigation and Arrest

After robbing the Washington First Bank on April 7, 2008 (“the April 7 bank robbery”), the perpetrator, wearing a trench coat and carrying an umbrella, exfilled west on K Street towards 16th Street, N.W. See Opp'n 15. Video surveillance from the Capital Hilton Hotel, located at 16 and K Streets, N.W., recorded a black man wearing a trench coat and carrying an umbrella running up K Street minutes after the robbery, briefly entering the hotel, and then exiting onto 16 Street and entering a taxi. Id. FBI Special Agent Luis DeJesus used this video surveillance to locate the driver of the taxi in which the perpetrator completed his getaway. Id. at 16. The driver provided Special Agent DeJesus the intersection where he dropped off the perpetrator—7th Street and Florida Avenue, N.W.—and the twenty-dollar bill used to pay for the fare. Id. The serial number on that twenty-dollar bill matched the serial number of one of the “bait” bills provided to the robber at Washington First Bank. Id.

A U.S. Secret Service sketch artist met with a bank teller who witnessed two robberies at Washington First Bank and created a sketch of the perpetrator, which law enforcement circulated throughout the District of Columbia. Id.; see also 05/16/08 Tr. 18, ECF No. 17. The teller described the perpetrator as a black male approximately forty to fifty years old, approximately five feet two inches in height, and with some “facial disfiguration or scarring on the left cheek.” See 05/16/08 Tr. 18; DeJesus Aff. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1–1. During canvassing operations, a citizen informed an FBI Agent that the sketch resembled an individual he knew and that the individual “frequented the area around 7 Street, N.W., and Florida Avenue, N.W.” (where the suspect was dropped off after the April 7 bank robbery). DeJesus Aff. ¶ 13. On May 12, 2008, the same citizen notified the FBI 1 that he made contact with the suspect at 7th Street and Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. (three blocks from 7 Street and Florida Avenue, N.W.). Id. at 25; see also 12/09/08 Tr. 130, ECF No. 62 (citing grand jury testimony of Special Agent DeJesus stating that the informant “stated he heard someone talking to him and referred to him by the name Mark”).

Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) officers arrived at the identified intersection in a marked cruiser and approached the suspect. Id. at 16. In his affidavit, Special Agent DeJesus reported that the suspect fled from the approaching officers, who gave chase and eventually apprehended the suspect two blocks away. See id. at 16, 25. MPD Detective John Reese later testified, in a pre-trial motions hearing, to the actions taken by him and other law enforcement personnel during the stop and arrest of Mr. Stubblefield: “I became aware of a subject who is currently being sought for some bank robberies in the area and received some information that this particular subject of interest was in a part of town and basically responded to that and became involved....” 12/09/08 Tr. 12.

Myself and my partner, Agent Sanborn, arrived almost simultaneously as a uniformed member of the police department was approaching Mr. Stubblefield in [a] sunken patio area in the rear of [an] apartment building [in the alley of 7th and S Street, N.W.].

...

I got there in a millisecond after apparently he was asked to go ahead, and you know, lie on the ground, and he was subsequently placed in a pair of handcuffs, patted down very quickly, and then removed from the patio through a door in this building and taken out to the alley where our vehicles were.

At that point, we asked Mr. Stubblefield, of course, his name, and at that point is when he elicited the response that his name was Michael Smith.

...

[At the time I arrived], he was not free to go. He was stopped.

Id. at 17–18, 20.

At some point during this stop, law enforcement searched the suspect and found a “crack cocaine stem” in his possession.2See Opp'n 11, 16–17; Mem. in Support of Mot. Vacate 10–11, ECF No. 109 (“Def.'s 2255 Mem.). The suspect was then arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia (“PDP”) and taken to MPD headquarters where a fingerprint analysis positively identified him as Mark Stubblefield, a 5'2? African American male born in 1957. Opp'n 17; 05/16/08 Tr. 38. Law enforcement used Mr. Stubblefield's booking photograph in a photo array shown to two of the April 7 bank robbery witnesses, one of whom positively identified Mr. Stubblefield as the robber, while the other at first said it was not him, but then stated he looked like the robber. 05/16/08 Tr. 28–30. Incorporating the photo array identification into his affidavit, Special Agent DeJesus received and executed an arrest warrant against Mark Stubblefield on May 13, 2008, for the criminal complaint charging him with bank robbery. See Arrest Warrant, ECF No. 2.

C. Procedural History

On May 16, 2008, Mr. Stubblefield appeared before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay in a preliminary and detention hearing on the criminal complaint charging him with bank robbery. See 05/16/08 Tr. 3. Federal Public Defender Jonathan Jeffress represented Mr. Stubblefield at this hearing. Id. Mr. Jeffress argued that the complaint and accompanying affidavit sworn by Special Agent DeJesus lacked a sufficient basis to support a finding of probable cause for the preliminary hearing. Id. at 9–11. Judge Kay disagreed:

Bearing in mind that this is not ... proof beyond a reasonable doubt.... [T]he facts set forth in the complaint might well reflect evidence that the individual is not responsible for the crime, [but] the Court can still find probable cause ... bearing in mind that the threshold is not very strong, the barrier is not very high. You've got an individual who had left the bank at a certain particular time, there was a camera following an individual who left the bank at that time, that he was wearing certain clothing, carrying an umbrella, that he went to the Capital Hilton on 16th and K Street.

A cab driver picked up an individual at the Capital Hilton on that same date ... maybe there is some time connection also, and that cab driver was paid by the individual that he picked up with a $20.00 bill that came from bait money given to the robber by the bank. I think, albeit not [ ] beyond a reasonable doubt at this point ... there's enough for probable [cause].

Id. at 11–12.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Connelly questioned Special Agent DeJesus about Mr. Stubblefield's facial complexion. Id. at 34–35. Special Agent DeJesus stated that Mr. Stubblefield has “deep indentations.... Just when he's in a normal posture, when he's talking, there's just divots ... or impressions that are deep under his cheeks.” Id. at 34. He further explained that, when law enforcement attempted to photograph Mr. Stubblefield following his arrest, he “did not want his photo taken, kept having his head down and puffing out his cheeks.... So that we could not get a good facial shot.” Id. at 35. Judge Kay found that the totality of the factors presented—the photo array identification by one robbery witness; Mr. Stubblefield's match to the witnesses description of the perpetrator's age, height, facial complexion, race, and gender; Mr. Stubblefield's location in the same area where the robber was dropped off; and Mr. Stubblefield's act of distorting the configuration of his face—supported a finding of probable cause. See id. at 41–42.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United States v. Wright
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 12, 2014
    ...set aside plea of guilty, “the preponderance of evidence supports the judgment rejecting petitioner's claim”); United States v. Stubblefield, 931 F.Supp.2d 118, 126 (D.D.C.2013) (“The petitioner bears the burden of proof under § 2255 and must demonstrate his right to relief by a preponderan......
  • United States v. Verrusio
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • April 21, 2017
    ...rights by a preponderance of evidence. Id.; United States v. Simpson, 475 F.2d 934, 935 (D.C. Cir. 1973); United States v. Stubblefield, 931 F. Supp. 2d 118, 126 (D.D.C. 2013) ("The petitioner bears the burden of proof under § 2255 and must demonstrate his right to relief by a preponderance......
  • United States v. Suggs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 24, 2015
    ...the failure of appellate counsel to raise this issue on appeal cannot constitute deficient performance. See United States v. Stubblefield , 931 F.Supp.2d 118, 127 (D.D.C.2013). Accordingly, this claim of ineffective assistance is without merit.D. Ineffectiveness Claim Based on Failure to Mo......
  • United States v. Leake
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 26, 2020
    ...suspicion can become probable cause if a defendant attempts to flee an approaching officer. See United States v. Stubblefield, 931 F. Supp. 2d 118, 131 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd, 820 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (collecting cases). Furthermore, where officers observe a concealed firearm under circu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT