Williams v. United States
| Decision Date | 22 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-3226 |
| Parties | LEONARD WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Leonard Williams's Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Set Aside Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (d/e 1). Mr Williams asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to a sentencing enhancement resulting from a prior conviction. Because Mr. Williams cannot show that his counsel was ineffective Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
On February 6, 2018, a four-count indictment was filed in Case No. 18-CR-30006 (the “Criminal Case”) charging Mr. Williams and his brother Lonnie Williams with conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B), possession of more than 100 grams of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See C.D. Ill. Case No. 18-CR-30006, d/e 12. That indictment served as the charging document in the Criminal Case that resulted in the sentence which Mr. Williams now seeks to vacate or correct. At Mr. Williams's initial appearance in the Criminal Case before United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that Mr. Williams qualified for court-appointed counsel and appointed Assistant Federal Public Defender Douglas Quivey to represent Mr. Williams. See id., d/e 7. Mr. Quivey then represented Mr. Williams for the duration of the Criminal Case, which concluded with Mr. Williams's sentencing on September 24, 2018.
In the Criminal Case, the Government filed an Information Charging Prior Offenses on March 7, 2018. See id., d/e 16. The Information gave notice pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) that Mr. Williams had been convicted of an offense that qualified as a basis for a sentencing enhancement. Id. The conviction referred to in the Information is a 2011 Illinois state court conviction for four counts of delivery of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a public park under 720 ILCS 570/407(b)(1). See McLean County Case No. 2010-CF-859. Mr. Williams was also charged in the McLean County case with four counts of delivery of a controlled substance under 720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2), but the “delivery of a controlled substance” offenses were lesser included offenses that merged with the offenses for delivery within 1000 feet of a public park upon Mr. Williams's conviction. See id.
On April 27, 2018, Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin pursuant to a written plea agreement. Criminal Case, d/e 16, ¶ 3. Petitioner's plea agreement in the Criminal Case was entered into pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and provided that the Government would move for a two-level reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility and an additional one-level reduction for Petitioner timely notifying the Government of his intention to plead guilty. Id., ¶¶ 11-12. The Government also promised to recommend a sentence “at the low- end of the applicable Sentencing Guideline range, as determined by the Court.” Id., ¶ 15.
Petitioner's plea agreement also provided, in a section entitled “Potential Penalties, ” that because Petitioner had one prior qualifying conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 851 the potential penalties for the charge to which Petitioner was pleading guilty included “Not less than 10 years and up to life imprisonment.” Id., ¶ 8. Furthermore, Petitioner agreed to waive his right to appeal from his sentence, except with a claim of involuntariness or ineffective assistance of counsel. Id., ¶ 18. Petitioner also waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence, and specifically his right to challenge his sentence through a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, except with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id., ¶ 19.
The U.S. Probation Office prepared a revised Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). Criminal Case, d/e 33. The PSR calculated Mr. Williams's total offense level as 34 and his criminal history category as VI. Id., ¶¶ 41, 51. Accordingly, his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. Id., ¶ 89. The PSR also provided further detail regarding Mr. Williams's 2011 conviction in McLean County, Illinois Circuit Court, Case No. 2010-CF-859, indicating he was convicted of four counts of unlawful delivery of between 1 and 15 grams of cocaine and four counts of unlawful delivery of between 1 and 15 grams of cocaine within 1, 000 feet of Miller Park in Bloomington, Illinois. Id., ¶ 48.
On September 24, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held in the Criminal Case. Prior to the sentencing hearing, defense counsel filed a Commentary on Sentencing Factors recommending a sentence of 120 months' imprisonment, to be followed by 8 years' supervised release. Criminal Case, d/e 38. Attached as exhibits to the Commentary were a 74-page Mitigation Report prepared by Mitigation Specialist Kathleen Leifer and a letter of support written by Mr. Williams's girlfriend, LaShondra Davis. Id. At the sentencing hearing, the Court asked Mr. Williams to “affirm or deny” whether he had been “convicted of manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance in McLean County, case number 2010-CF-859” and asked Mr. Williams whether he understood that he could not challenge the existence of the prior conviction on appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding if he did not challenge the existence of a prior conviction before sentencing. Mr. Williams affirmed that he had been so convicted and that he understood. The Court found that Mr. Williams's total offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 34 and that the applicable Criminal History Category was Roman numeral VI, resulting in a Guidelines sentencing range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment. The Court further found that the applicable statutory minimum term of imprisonment was 10 years and that the applicable statutory minimum term of supervised release was 8 years. The Court then imposed a sentence reflecting the statutory minimums, as determined: 120 months' imprisonment, to be followed by an 8-year term of supervised release. See Criminal Case, d/e 44.
In December 2018, a few months after Mr. Williams's sentencing, Mr. Williams's former counsel Douglas Quivey left the Federal Public Defender's office for the Central District of Illinois and shortly thereafter accepted a position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, also in the Central District. In March 2021, Mr. Quivey began serving as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. Mr. Quivey is still the Acting U.S. Attorney for this District as of the date of this Opinion. Mr. Quivey's transition from public defender to prosecutor created a potential conflict of interest because Mr. Quivey is both a key witness in Mr. Williams's § 2255 case and the head of the Office that would normally be responsible for opposing Mr. Williams's § 2255 motion. To address this issue, the U.S. Attorney General on May 7, 2021 appointed a Special Attorney from outside of the Central District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 515 to oppose Petitioner's § 2255 motion.
On September 20, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant pro se Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Set Aside Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (d/e 1). On January 12, 2021, this Court appointed counsel to represent Petitioner under the Criminal Justice Act with respect to Petitioner's § 2255 motion. On May 5, 2021, appointed counsel filed a supplemental memorandum in support of Petitioner's pro se motion. In his § 2255 motion and the supporting memorandum, Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the negotiation of his plea agreement in the Criminal Case in 2018. Petitioner argues that his attorney during the Criminal Case, Douglas Quivey, rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance when he did not argue that Petitioner's prior conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute could not serve as the basis for a sentencing enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 851. According to Petitioner, Mr. Quivey should have objected to the application of the § 851 sentencing enhancement because the Illinois statute under which Petitioner was convicted in 2010 applies an overly broad definition of “cocaine.”
The Government responded to Petitioner's pro se § 2255 motion on February 3, 2020. Mr. Quivey was employed at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of Illinois at the time but was not yet the Acting U.S. Attorney and was not assigned to Petitioner's habeas case. In its Response (d/e 6), the Government argues: (1) that Petitioner's § 2255 motion is barred by the collateral review waiver in the plea agreement Petitioner entered into before his 2018 sentencing, and (2) that Mr. Quivey's representation of Petitioner in the Criminal Case was not constitutionally ineffective.
On May 13, 2021, an evidentiary hearing was held on Petitioner's Motion. At the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner was represented by appointed counsel and the Government was represented by Special Attorney Nathan D. Stump. Mr. Quivey was called to testify as a witness.
18 U.S.C. § 2255, “the federal prisoner's substitute for habeas corpus, ” Brown v. Rios 696 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2012), permits a prisoner incarcerated pursuant to an Act of Congress to request that his sentence be vacated, set aside, or corrected if “the sentence was imposed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial