Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11444/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11444

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-cv-00008-RV-GRJ; 1:08-cr-00010-GRJ-2

WILLIAM J. ERICKSON, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 12, 2017)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 1 of 7
2

William Erickson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2009 Erickson was 

convicted of (1) conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to 

manufacture and distribute more than 100 marijuana plants, (2) manufacturing and 

possessing with intent to distribute more than 100 marijuana plants, and

(3) attempting to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding. Erickson 

contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. He bases that contention on 

counsel’s decision to concede during his closing arguments that Erickson was 

guilty of part of the charged conspiracy. Erickson argues that counsel made that 

concession without consulting with him first. He asserts that the district court 

should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance claim. 

I.

In April 2008 the Drug Enforcement Agency learned about a possible indoor 

marijuana grow operation on some land owned by John Sager. Agents obtained a 

search warrant for the property and later found 917 marijuana plants. The agents 

then searched for other property owned by Sager and found an eighty acre piece of 

land that Sager co-owned with Erickson. The agents obtained a warrant to search 

the buildings on that property and found hanging lights, dehumidifiers, drying 

racks, insulation, soil, and pruning shears. The larger building on the property 

looked like someone had recently swept its floor, but 134 circles of moisture and 

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 2 of 7
3

dirt were still visible on the floor, indicating that planting pots had recently been 

sitting there. The agents followed vehicle tire tracks on the property to an adjacent 

property where Erickson and his wife lived. The agents secured a search warrant 

for that property and found marijuana residue in a truck bed, 133 pots containing 

soil and marijuana plant roots outside of Erickson’s house, and they found 

marijuana grow books, a money counter, and over $350,000 in cash inside the 

house. Agents then followed vehicle and footprint tracks to a third property 

Erickson owned, secured a search warrant, found seventy live marijuana plants,

and discovered inside of garbage bags the tops of 133 recently cut marijuana 

plants.

While searching the property that Erickson and Sager jointly owned, the 

agents found surveillance cameras and video footage. The footage, which at times 

was grainy, showed a man wearing the same clothes that Erickson was wearing on 

the day of the search. The man left the building on that property and walked

toward Erickson’s home, only to return around ten minutes later in Erickson’s 

truck with a camper hitched to it, backing the truck and camper to the building. A 

little over ten minutes after arriving, the man in the video headed back toward the

home driving the truck and camper. About a half hour later, he again drove up and 

backed the truck up to the building. And a half hour after that, he drove the truck 

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 3 of 7
4

off of the property only to return on foot, carrying a broom, around twenty minutes 

after leaving. He later left the building carrying two garbage bags.

Erickson and Sager were charged with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, 

and possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute over 1,000 marijuana 

plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), and with 

manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute more than 1,000 marijuana 

plants in violation of §§ 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii). Erickson was also charged 

with attempting to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding under 18 

U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). At trial Erickson did not call any defense witnesses and he

did not testify, though he did file a stipulation showing that he operated a cypress 

tree nursery. 

During closing arguments, Erickson’s counsel focused on pointing to

evidence designed to discredit the government’s witnesses as well as noting the 

lack of evidence connecting Erickson to the 917 marijuana plants the agents found 

on Sager’s property. In his closing argument, Erickson’s counsel conceded the

strength of the evidence connecting Erickson to the seventy live marijuana plants 

and the 133 cut marijuana plant tops found on Erickson’s property:

I suggest to you that the evidence is Mr. Erickson is connected to the 

203 plants that were found [on Erickson’s third property] and that’s it 

because the rooted bottoms are on this property. The [property where 

he lived] has the rest of the plant material. We are stuck. The 

evidence is clear on that. That’s his conspiracy. That’s the one he 

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 4 of 7
5

joined in. There is [no other conspiracy] unless you paint with a 

broad brush, unless you make these gigantic assumptions . . . .

Erickson’s counsel never consulted with him about conceding his guilt as to the 

203 marijuana plants. The jury returned a guilty verdict, finding Erickson guilty 

but only as to conspiring to manufacture and manufacturing between 100 and 999 

marijuana plants, as opposed to the 1,000 or more marijuana plants he had been 

charged with both conspiring to manufacture and manufacturing. The jury also 

found him guilty of attempting to obstruct, influence, and impede an official 

proceeding. Erickson appealed and we affirmed those convictions. See United 

States v. Cha, 431 F. App’x 790 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).

Erickson later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on twelve claims for 

relief. The magistrate judge recommended denying of all of his claims, and the 

district court adopted that recommendation over Erickson’s objections. We 

granted a certificate of appealability on Erickson’s ninth claim: “Whether the 

district court erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Erickson’s claim 

that counsel was ineffective for admitting Erickson’s guilt without consulting 

Erickson about the decision.”

II.

A district court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255

motion if “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that 

the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). We review for abuse of 

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 5 of 7
6

discretion the district court’s denial of a § 2255 evidentiary hearing. See Aron v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 708, 714 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002). 

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Erickson must show both that 

his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance 

prejudiced his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 

S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). But “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness 

claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be 

followed.” Id. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. And to meet the prejudice prong, “[t]he 

defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. More specifically, “a verdict or conclusion only weakly 

supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one 

with overwhelming record support.” Id. at 696, 104 S. Ct. at 2069.

Even if Erickson’s counsel’s concession of guilt rose to the level of deficient 

performance, Erickson was not prejudiced because the evidence against him as to 

the 203 marijuana plants was overwhelming. The agents found that 134 plant pots 

had recently been removed from the property that Erickson and Sager jointly 

owned, and video footage from earlier that day showed someone who looked like

Erickson driving back and forth from that property and his residence, at one point 

carrying garbage bags away from that property. At Erickson’s residence the agents 

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 6 of 7
7

found a truck bed containing marijuana residue, 133 plant pots containing 

marijuana roots and over $350,000 in cash. And, at the third property Erickson 

owned, the agents found seventy live marijuana plants along with the tops of 133 

other freshly cut plants inside of garbage bags. 

In light of this overwhelming evidence connecting Erickson to the 203 

plants, he cannot show that any error his counsel made by conceding his guilt as to 

those plants prejudiced him. As a result, the record conclusively shows that 

Erickson is not entitled to relief and the district court did not abuse its discretion by 

denying him an evidentiary hearing. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-11444 Date Filed: 01/12/2017 Page: 7 of 7