Waters v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:21-CV-5067-CBK |
| Parties | LESTER WATERS, JR. Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Lester Waters, Jr. (“petitioner”) was found guilty by a jury of his peers of two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3), 1153; two counts of Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, violative of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6), 1153; and two counts of Discharging, Brandishing, or Possessing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 934(c)(1)(A)(iii). 5:18-CR-50015-JLV (“C.R.”), [1] doc. 153. United States District Court Judge Jeffrey Viken sentenced Mr. Waters to time served on the Assault with a Dangerous Weapon convictions; time served on the Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury convictions; and 120 months on each of the Discharging, Brandishing, or Possessing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence convictions, consecutive to each other and to all other sentences, followed by three years of supervised release on all counts, to run concurrently. C.R. doc. 281. The petitioner is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Big Spring, in Texas, with an expected release date of August 14, 2037.
During the underlying criminal proceedings, the petitioner wound his way through six lawyers, and ultimately representing himself pro se at times. Prior to trial, the defendant's counsel moved to suppress statements Waters provided to law enforcement who arrived on scene after he shot and grievously injured Elgie Iron Bear and Charles Janis. C.R. doc. 55. Following an evidentiary hearing, United States Magistrate Judge Daneta Wollman submitted her Report and Recommendation granting in part, denying in part, the petitioner's motion to suppress. C.R. doc. 87. Judge Viken adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. C.R. doc. 96.
With pretrial motions complete, Mr. Waters proceeded to trial, where he was convicted on all six counts. Following the trial, Waters moved, pro se, for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. C.R. doc. 192. The petitioner would also file a motion to dismiss the discharging, Brandishing, or Possessing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence convictions. C.R. doc. 195. However, before this Court could rule on these pending motions, Mr. Waters filed an interlocutory appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, C.R. doc. 202, which was swiftly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. C.R. docs. 205, 206. Not deterred, Waters would again seek an interlocutory appeal. C.R. doc. 246. And again, the Circuit Court denied the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. C.R. docs. 250, 251. Once this Court again had jurisdiction over the matter, it denied, in an exhaustion Memorandum and Order, the petitioner's motions for a new trial and motion to dismiss. C.R. doc. 253.
After this Court sentenced Waters, the appellate court finally had jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. C.R. docs, 282, 284. Finally holding jurisdiction, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Waters' conviction. United States v. Waters, 2022 WL 351194 (8th Cir. Feb. 7, 2022) (per curiam).
However, while his appeal was pending before the Eighth Circuit, the petitioner filed this Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. Doc. 1. Because the appellate court has released its opinion in this matter, this Court may now properly assess the merits of the petitioner's three claims: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel on the part of trial counsel Robert Rohl, in violation of Waters' Sixth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution, as set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and its progeny; (2) again argues that his inculpatory statements to law enforcement were violative of his Fifth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution, as laid out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny; and (3) that the United States unconstitutionally withheld evidence favorable to him at trial. Upon initial review, all three claims should be dismissed in their entirety.
Mr. Waters filed this motion while his direct appeal was pending. It is a well-settled understanding that § 2255 motions cannot be entertained “while an appeal from conviction is pending.” Masters v. Eide, 353 F.2d 517, 518 (8th Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (internal citations omitted). A “federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously.” United States v. Ledbetter, 882 F.2d 1345, 1347 (8th Cir. 1989) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)). This Court does not even hold jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal pending a direct appeal: filing an appeal “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Id. (quoting Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58).
While the petitioner improperly filed this motion while his direct appeal laid pending, the Eighth Circuit has since denied his appeal and issued its mandate. See C.R. docs. 296 (Eighth Circuit opinion), 298 (mandate). Accordingly, this Court may now entrain Waters' petition.
To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a two-prong test must be met. Mr. Waters must show that his trial counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. Dorsey v. Vandergriff, 30 F.4th 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2022). See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 (1984). The petitioner must prove prejudice by showing “‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'” Donelson v. Steele, 16 F.4th 559, 570 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). See Fast Horse v. Class, 87 F.3d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir. 1996) () (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).
The heavy burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel is on the petitioner. Langford v. United States, 993 F.3d 633, 637 (8th Cir. 2021); Golinveaux v. United States, 915 F.3d 564, 567 (8th Cir. 2019). “The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy judged with the benefit of hindsight.” Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 6 (2003).
Petitioner first levies an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against one of his former attorneys, Robert Rohl.[2] With little substantiation, Waters contends that Mr. Rohl did not (1) pursue enough legal research during the pretrial period which could have bolstered his self-defense for shooting the two victims; (2) calling specific witnesses to testify at trial; (3) and offered a conclusory assertion of not “filing motions on [his] behalf to challenge fundamental issues with [his] case; (4) and because he was not informed of any plea deals. MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE, doc. 1 at 4. Each are addressed in turn.
First, the Court tackles whether Mr. Rohl was constitutionally defective for his pretrial research. Not only does Waters fail to provide any indicia of what additional research would have uncovered, but Rohl did clearly pursue ample research in preparation for trial. Mr. Rohl filed a post-evidentiary hearing memorandum in support of former counsel John Rusch's motion to suppress audio, video, and other statements made by the defendant to law enforcement. See C.R. doc. 83. Rohl provided forceful analysis of binding precedent before the Magistrate Judge tasked with the underlying suppression motion. However, even the most competent attorney could not succeed when up against such clear binding case law to the contrary. Trial counsel also objected to Judge Wollman's Report and Recommendation concerning the suppression motion, to further support his client's request to exclude his prior statements to law enforcement. C.R. doc. 91.
Rohl did not stop there in providing motions and briefing before this Court in advance of trial. He also submitted motions in limine and accompanying briefing concerning the extent of victims' injuries, while also pushing against the United States' motions in limine. C.R. doc. 108-10. Mr. Rohl also argued against the full use of specific witnesses offered by the government, C.R. docs. Ill. 112, 121-23, and against specific exhibits proposed by the United States, C.R. docs. 130-32. No further pretrial legal research would have altered the suppression motion's disposition, nor would it have bolstered the self-defense claim presented at trial by Rohl.
Next, Waters makes a passing reference to Rohl's purported failure to “calling witnesses to court to testify at [szc] trial.” MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE, doc. 1 at 4. Who are these witnesses that Rohl failed to call? The petitioner has not said.
This Court has already dispelled of arguments surrounding witnesses the petitioner's trial counsel did not call. First, this Court has previously explained how the government's witness Lance Leftwich was subpoenaed, but ultimately could not be located for trial. And as this Court has already held, “[t]he defendant's claim regarding the absence...
To continue reading
Request your trial