Woods v. United States

• Decision Date: 04 January 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:18-CV-00249-JAR
• Parties: TECO V. WOODS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

TECO V. WOODS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-CV-00249-JAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

January 4, 2021

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Movant Teco V. Woods' Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 12). Respondent United States of America has responded (Doc. 17), and Movant has replied. (Docs. 18-19). For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 18, 2017, Movant signed a guilty plea agreement admitting violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for possessing fifty grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute (Count II) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count V). United States of America v. Woods, No. 1:17-CR-00069-JAR-1 (hereinafter Woods Criminal Case), Doc. 39. In exchange for Movant's guilty plea, the government agreed to dismiss Counts I, III, and IV of the indictment at sentencing. Id. at 1. On March 22, 2018, this Court sentenced Movant to 60 months' imprisonment on each of Counts II and V, such terms to be served consecutively. Woods Criminal Case, Doc. 50.

The facts underlying Movant's crimes can be gleaned from the Final Presentence Investigation Report, which was admitted to this Court before sentencing without any objection to its contents by Movant. Woods Criminal Case, Doc. 47. On December 22, 2016, officers with the Cape Girardeau Police Department responded to an alleged theft at a Walmart. Witnesses stated that a male subject carrying a pink wallet was confronted by a store employee and ran to a nearby gas station. Officers arrived at the gas station and proceeded to detain Movant and Hernandez Evans in the parking lot. A gas station employee informed police that Movant had entered the bathroom. Surveillance footage from the gas station reviewed afterward showed Movant entering the gas station bathroom carrying a red duffle bag and exiting soon after without the bag. Police retrieved the bag, which contained over 110 grams of methamphetamine, a loaded Smith & Wesson, Model MP Shield, 9mm handgun, and various other drugs. Subsequent DNA analysis revealed a match between Movant and the handgun.

Movant has now filed an Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 12). This Court will construe the motion liberally given Movant's pro se status. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Movant brings the following grounds for relief:

Ground 1a (Probable Cause): Movant claims that he was arrested without probable cause because he was not involved in the theft which took place at the Walmart. (Doc. 12 at 13-14).

Ground 1b (Ineffective Assistance): Movant claims that he received ineffective assistance because his counsel declined to file motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. (Id. at 14-15).

Ground 1c (Involuntary Plea): Movant claims that his plea was involuntary because his counsel's ineffective assistance rendered him unprepared for trial. (Id. at 13-14).

Ground 1d (Actual Innocence): Movant claims actual innocence because the bag of contraband was abandoned in a public location.

Ground 2 (Jurisdictional Defect): Movant claims a jurisdictional defect as to Count V of his guilty plea because his crime was not "in commerce or affecting commerce." (Id. at 15-16).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A § 2255 movant is entitled to relief when his sentence "was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255). The movant must show that the claimed error "amount[s] to a 'fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete miscarriage of justice.'" Rhodes v. United States, No. 4:15-CV-432 JAR, 2018 WL 950223, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2018) (quoting Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974)).

"When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged," however, "he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of a guilty plea." Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266 (1973). "Collateral review of a guilty plea is therefore 'ordinarily confined to whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary.'" Green v. United States, No. 1:09-CV-34 CAS, 2012 WL 760891, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 7, 2012) (quoting United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989)).

III. MOVANT'S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to the plea agreement, Movant waived all rights to appeal "any issues relating to pretrial motions, discovery, and the guilty plea," "all rights to appeal all sentencing issues," and "all rights to contest the conviction or sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including one pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 2255], except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel." Woods Criminal Case, Doc. 39 at ¶ 7(a-b). At the Change of Plea Hearing, this Court specifically advised Movant of this waiver, and noted that Movant was waiving his "right to appeal any post-conviction issues or habeas corpus rulings except as it may relate to any possible claim for prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel." Woods CriminalCase, Doc. 58 at 20-21. When asked if he understood that he was waiving these appeal rights, Movant replied "Yes, sir." Id. at 21.

The Eighth Circuit has clearly held that "[a]s a general rule, a defendant is allowed to waive appellate rights." United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2003). The appeal waiver will be enforced as long as Movant "made a knowing and voluntary decision to forego his right to appeal." United States v. Morrison, 171 F.3d 567, 568 (8th Cir. 1999). Movant repeatedly argues that his appeal was involuntary because he was arrested without probable cause and his counsel had not successfully suppressed evidence. (Doc. 12 at 13-15). The hearing transcript clearly reflects, however, that Movant was properly informed of his appeal rights and made a "voluntary and intelligent choice" to waive such rights. United States v. Gray, 152 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29 (1992)). As discussed further below, there is no evidence that Movant's guilty plea or waiver of appeal rights was involuntary in any respect.

Therefore, the Court finds that Movant has waived his right to appeal Grounds 1(a) (Probable Cause) and 1(d) (Actual Innocence) of his § 2255 motion. See United States v. Seizys, 864 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2017) (applying appeal waiver to bar claim of actual innocence); United States v. Harner, 628 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2011) (applying appeal waiver to bar claim that evidence was recovered in violation of Fourth Amendment). The plea agreement, as required under applicable precedent, specifically excludes from the waiver Movant's right to appeal claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel (Ground 1(b)). Ground 1(c) (Involuntary Plea) merits further consideration as it is the basis for finding Movant has waived his right to appeal. Finally, Ground 2 (Jurisdictional Defect) may fall within the "miscarriage of justice" exception because a "defendant has the right to appeal an illegal sentence, even though there exists an otherwise valid waiver." Andis, 333 F.3d at 891-92 (citing DeRoo v. United States, 223 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2000)).

IV. DISCUSSION

GROUND 1(a) - PROBABLE CAUSE

Movant argues that the search of the gas station bathroom trash can was "fruit of the poisonous tree" because there was no probable cause for his arrest. (Doc. 12 at 13-14 (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963)). The Supreme Court has asserted that a "guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process," and a defendant who has pleaded guilty "may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea." Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). "Thus, to the extent that [Movant] challenges the constitutionality of the arrest and search as a claim in its own right, rather than as an aspect of his claim that the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary . . . , such a claim is barred." United States v. Clevenger, No. 08-4913 ADM, 2009 WL 188586, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2009) (citing Smith v. United States, 876 F.2d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 1989)); see also United States v. Freeman, 625 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) ("A guilty plea waives all suppression issues not expressly reserved by a conditional plea.").

In the alternative, the Court also finds that there was probable cause to arrest Movant and search the gas station bathroom trash can. Police were called to the Walmart to investigate a theft and were informed by witnesses that the suspects had fled to the gas station. Witnesses also identified a white Chevrolet Suburban as connected to the theft; the keys to this vehicle were ultimately found on Hernandez Evans, who was detained along with Movant. An employee of the gas station informed police that Movant had entered the bathroom before police arrived. Officers proceeded to discover the bag of contraband in bathroom trash can. Movant was arrested after thebag was discovered. Woods Criminal Case, Doc. 39 at 4. Movant has admitted in his reply that he was in possession of the firearm but claims the drugs were not his. (Doc. 18 at 3).

An officer has probable cause to make a warrantless arrest "when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has committed or is committing a crime." Royster v. Nichols, 698 F.3d 681, 688 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2010)). Based on the theft at...