Wallace v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3:19-cv-01122,3:19-cv-01122
• Citation: 458 F.Supp.3d 830
• Parties: Dominique WALLACE, Movant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

458 F.Supp.3d 830

Dominique WALLACE, Movant,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

No. 3:19-cv-01122

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Filed May 6, 2020

Dominique Wallace, Jonesville, VA, pro se.

Brent Adams Hannafan, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philip H. Wehby, Office of the United States Attorney, Nashville, TN, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM

Aleta A. Trauger, United States District Judge Pending before the court is pro se movant Dominique Wallace's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence previously imposed by this court. (Doc. No. 1). The government filed a response to the motion, urging that none of Wallace's claims present a valid basis for post-conviction relief. (Doc. No. 11). For the following reasons, Wallace's motion will be denied, and this action will be dismissed.

I. Background

On the night of June 3, 2015, Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) Officers responded to an attempted robbery at the Express Market located at 2408 Antioch Pike, Antioch, Tennessee. (Case 3:15-cr-140, Crim. Doc. No. 225 at PageID# 600). The Express Market's surveillance cameras, which captured the incident, showed three armed, masked people enter the market. (Id. ) As the investigation later revealed, those people were Dominique Cordell Wallace (aka "Deuce Face") and two of his associates: Demontay Thomas and Robert Dewayne Brooks. (Id. ) A fourth individual, Michael Bright, was waiting outside as a getaway driver. (Id. ) Once inside the store, Brooks grabbed a store clerk and forced him at gunpoint toward the counter. (Id. ) The store owner was standing behind the counter, which was separated from the rest of the store by a plexiglass wall. (Id. ) The suspects held the owner and clerk at gunpoint while demanding money. (Id. )

Thomas then began to crawl under the counter to gain access to the cash register. (Id. at PageID# 600). As he was doing so, Brooks sought access to the cash register by crawling through a hole in the plexiglass wall. (Id. ) Brooks had not seen Thomas crawl under the counter and was startled when he suddenly saw Thomas below him. (Id. ) Brooks then began firing his pistol (which had an extended magazine) in Thomas's direction, ultimately shooting him. (Id. ) Thomas managed to get up after he was shot and made it to the entrance of the market before falling to the ground. He later was pronounced dead at the scene. (Id. )

After Thomas was shot, Brooks and Wallace began to flee the store. (Id. at PageID# 601). As they did, Brooks grabbed the store clerk and forced him to accompany them before shoving him to the ground near the store exit. (Id. ) Once the clerk was on the ground, Wallace shot him in the head. (Id. ) The clerk was later transported to Vanderbilt Medical Center for treatment. (Id. ) He ultimately survived, despite sustaining serious injuries. (Id. )

Meanwhile, Wallace and Brooks got into Bright's vehicle and fled the scene without obtaining any of the money sought in the robbery. (Id. ) Wallace then tried to dispose of the gun he had used to shoot the store clerk. (Id. at PageID# 601). Wallace gave the gun to Bright, who in turn gave it to his girlfriend (who also owned the getaway car), who later sold it to a friend. (Id. ) After the gun was later recovered, police used ballistics analysis to connect it to casings found at the Express Market. (Id. at PageID# 601).

On December 9, 2015, Wallace, Brooks, and Bright were charged in a multi-count superseding indictment. (Id. , Doc. No. 27). Specifically, Wallace was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce and one count of attempted robbery affecting commerce (commonly referred to as conspiracy and attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1951 ; two counts related to possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ; and one count of using and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, resulting in the murder of Demontay Thomas, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). (Id. ) On July 7, 2017, Wallace pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement. (Id. , Doc. Nos. 108 and 109).

Wallace also was charged in a separate case with a single count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. (Case No. 3:15-cr-00098, Doc. No. 11). Wallace pleaded guilty in that case without a plea agreement, and the two cases were consolidated for purposes of sentencing. The firearm charge stemmed from an incident on June 10, 2015—one week after the Express Market shooting—wherein Wallace was found with a loaded 9mm pistol. (Id ., Doc. No. 225 at PageID# 599-600). Wallace had just been convicted in Davidson County Criminal Court on May 7, 2015, of attempted second-degree murder, a class B felony. The facts of that case reveal that, in April of 2012, Wallace, at age seventeen, along with an accomplice, engaged in the robbery of another wherein he shot the victim multiple times, resulting in life threatening injuries to that victim. Wallace was transferred to adult court where he ultimately pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder, for which he received a split sentence and was placed on probation for 10 years. (Id ., Doc. No. 225 at PageID# 610).

Following Wallace's guilty plea, the Probation Office prepared a presentence report that calculated a combined advisory guideline range of 360 months to life imprisonment. (Id ., Doc. No. 225 at PageID# 619). The key legal question at issue at sentencing was whether Wallace's conviction under Section 924(j) incorporated the penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) —that is, whether the 924(j) count carried a ten-year mandatory minimum and must be consecutive to all other counts, or instead had no mandatory minimum and could be concurrent with all other counts. Although the Probation Office concluded that the sentence on the Section 924(j) count had no mandatory minimum and could be concurrent, it ultimately recommended a total sentence of 420 months, including 420 months on the Section 924(j) count alone. (Id. )

The government objected to the Probation Office's determination that the penalty for violating Section 924(j) was zero years up to life imprisonment, with no consecutive sentencing required. (Id ., Doc. No. 216 at PageID# 544-47). The government argued that the penalty range should reflect a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment consecutive to any other sentence because Section 924(j) necessarily incorporates the penalties associated with Section 924(c). (Id . at PageID# 544-47). The government also filed a sentencing memorandum seeking a guideline sentence of forty years’ imprisonment. (Id ., Doc. No. 218 at PageID# 548-51).

At the sentencing hearing, the court heard evidence from the government in the form of video surveillance of the attempted robbery and shooting and the testimony of the shooting victim who had sustained permanent and life-threatening injury from the shooting perpetrated by Wallace. Wallace also presented evidence in the form of testimony from a former teacher/coach and a social worker principally regarding his childhood, environmental, and personal circumstances. Following testimony and argument, the court sentenced Wallace to 30 years of imprisonment, which the court structured as follows: 20 years on the Hobbs Act robbery counts and 10 years on the felon-in-possession counts, with those sentences running concurrently, followed by 10 years on the Section 924(j) count. (Id ., Doc. No. 232 at PageID# 805-06; Doc. No. 222 at PageID# 567-69). The court also imposed a 10-year concurrent sentence on the sole count in Case No. 3:15-cr-00098. (Case No. 3:15-cr-98, Doc. No. 89 at PageID# 203). Wallace's sentence was ordered to run consecutively to any pending state sentence. (Id ., Doc. No. 222 at PageID# 569). Neither Wallace nor the government objected to the sentence imposed. (Id ., Doc. No. 232 at PageID# 809).

Wallace filed an appeal, arguing that the district court erred when it sentenced him to a consecutive term of imprisonment under § 924(j). United States v. Wallace , 772 F. App'x 320 (6th Cir. 2019). In affirming the court's judgment, the Sixth Circuit noted that circuits are divided as to whether a sentence imposed under § 924(j) must run consecutively to any other sentence; however, the Court did not need to resolve the question in Wallace's case because "the record ma[de] clear that the district court ‘would have imposed the same sentence’ regardless of its purported error." Id. at 321 (quoting Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) ).

Wallace filed the instant § 2255 motion on December 16, 2019. (Doc. No. 1). In his § 2255 motion, Bradley attacks his conviction and sentence on two grounds. First, he challenges his conviction in Case 3:15-cr-98 for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. Wallace contends, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019), that he did not know, and the government did not prove he knew, that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm; these failures, according to Wallace, render his plea and conviction invalid. Second, Wallace challenges his conviction in Case 3:15-cr-140 for using and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, resulting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). Wallace contends, based on United States v. Davis , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019), that the predicate offense of conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce is not a crime of violence, rendering invalid his conviction for the Section 924(j) violation. The government filed a response to the motion, urging that none of Wallace's claims present a valid basis for post-conviction relief. (Doc. No. 11).

II. Applicable Law

A prisoner in...