Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00638/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00638-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARVIN THOMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

 ) Civil Action No. 2:07cv638-LSC

v ) (WO)

 ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Federal inmate Marvin Thomas (“Thomas”) asks the court to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After careful consideration of Thomas’s

§ 2255 motion, the supporting and opposing submissions, and the record in this case, the

court concludes that an evidentiary hearing is not required and that, pursuant to Rule 8(a),

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts, the motion

should be denied.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 6, 2006, Thomas, represented by attorney Timothy Halstrom, pled guilty

to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On May 25,

2006, the district court sentenced Thomas to 37 months in prison. On June 13, 2006,

Thomas filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On June 16, 2006, the district court

granted the motion, and Thomas’s conviction and sentence were vacated.

On August 16, 2006, Halstrom filed a motion to withdraw as Thomas’s counsel in

Case 2:07-cv-00638-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 04/01/09 Page 1 of 6
further proceedings. The district court ordered that this motion be held in abeyance and

directed that Thomas represent himself at a competency hearing requested by Thomas and

set for September 7, 2006, with Halstrom to act as standby counsel.

On September 7, 2006, Thomas, acting pro se, moved to withdraw the motion for a

competency hearing. The district court granted Thomas’s motion to withdraw his previous

motion and allowed Thomas to continue to represent himself, with Halstrom continuing as

his standby counsel. On that same date, and pursuant to a plea agreement, Thomas again

pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court again sentenced

Thomas to 37 months in prison.1

 Thomas did not appeal.

On June 27, 2007, Thomas filed with this court a document in which he challenged

the validity of his guilty plea. (Doc. No. 2.) After advising Thomas of its intention to do so,

and with Thomas’s consent,2

 this court construed the document as a motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (See Doc. Nos. 3-5.) The court then

entered orders directing Thomas to clarify his claims for relief; Thomas responded by

supplementing his pleadings. (See Doc. Nos. 4, 6, and 7.)

This court has concluded that Thomas asserts the following claims in his § 2255

motion:

1. He (Thomas) was absent from the court proceedings that took

1

Thomas later filed a pro se motion to withdraw the guilty plea. That motion was denied by

the district court.

2

See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003).

2

Case 2:07-cv-00638-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 04/01/09 Page 2 of 6
place on September 7, 2006, and consequently he did not sign

or consent to the plea agreement.

2. Because he was proceeding pro se and did not want attorney

Timothy Halstrom in the courtroom during the guilty plea

proceedings, and because Halstrom’s signature appears on the

plea agreement as “Attorney for the Defendant,” the guilty plea

is invalid.

(Doc. Nos. 2 and 7.)

The government answers that Thomas’s claims are meritless and that, therefore, they

afford him no basis for relief. (Doc. No. 11.) Thomas was allowed an opportunity to

respond to the government’s answer but failed to do so.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Thomas’s “Absence” from September 7, 2006, Proceedings

Thomas claims he was absent from the court proceedings that took place on

September 7, 2006, and that, as a result, he never signed or consented to the plea agreement,

a circumstance that renders his guilty plea invalid. (Doc. No. 2 at 1-5; Doc. No. 7 at 1.) In

this regard, Thomas maintains:

My client Marvin Thomas went to court on date 9-7-06 before Judge Scott

Coogler for a competency hearing so he could go home, not to sign a plea

agreement to be sent to prison for a year. I was out of town and could not

make it for the competency hearing. This plea agreement should not have

never take place, unless me, Marvin Thomas defense counsel for this case

power of attorney for this case should have been present [sic].

(Doc. No. 2 at 2.)

Thomas’s claim is as frivolous as it is fantastic. The record clearly reflects that

3

Case 2:07-cv-00638-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 04/01/09 Page 3 of 6
Thomas was present at all times during the court proceedings that took place on September

7, 2006. On the morning of September 7, Thomas was present in court for a scheduled

competency hearing. (See Case No. 2:05cr101-LCS - Doc. No. 89.) At that hearing,

Thomas withdrew his previous motion for a competency determination and reaffirmed his

desire to represent himself and to have attorney Timothy Halstrom act as his standby

counsel. (Id. at 3-6.) Later on the afternoon of September 7, Thomas reappeared in court

with Halstrom and indicated his desire to enter a guilty plea. (See “United States’ Response

to § 2255 Motion” - Doc. No. 11- Exhibit D at 2.) Thomas then expressly consented to have

Halstrom act as his counsel for purposes of plea negotiations3

 and entry of the guilty plea. 

(Id. at 4-5.) Moreover, notwithstanding Thomas’s claims to the contrary in his § 2255

motion, the record plainly reflects Thomas’s acknowledgment in open court that he signed

the written plea agreement and understood its contents. (Id. at 5-8.) 

Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Marvin Thomas who filed this § 2255 motion was

present for the relevant proceedings and that he signed his plea agreement. Therefore, he is

not entitled to any relief based on this claim.

B. Presence of Halstrom During Guilty Plea Proceedings

Thomas contends that because he was proceeding pro se and did not want Halstrom

3

Because Thomas had previously pled guilty to the same charge (on February 6, 2006) before

being allowed to withdraw that plea (on June 16, 2006), most of the plea negotiations pertinent to

his September 7 plea had already taken place. At the September 7 proceedings, the parties also

waived preparation of a new presentence report and relied on the presentence report that had been

prepared following Thomas’s previous guilty plea.

4

Case 2:07-cv-00638-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 04/01/09 Page 4 of 6
in the courtroom during the guilty plea proceedings, and because Halstrom’s signature

appears on the plea agreement as “Attorney for the Defendant,” his guilty plea is invalid. 

(Doc. No. 2 at 3-5; Doc. No. 7 at 2.)

This claim lacks merit because there is no evidence that Thomas wanted Halstrom

excluded from the courtroom during the guilty plea proceedings, and, in fact, as noted above,

the record reflects that Thomas expressly consented to have Halstrom act as his counsel for

purposes of plea negotiations and entry of his guilty plea. (See “United States’ Response to

§ 2255 Motion” - Doc. No. 11- Exhibit D at 4-5.) While Halstrom’s signature does appear

on the written plea agreement as “Attorney for the Defendant,” Thomas’s signature is also

on that agreement, and Thomas acknowledged in open court that he read, signed, and

understood the agreement. (See “United States’ Response to § 2255 Motion” - Doc. No. 11-

Exhibit C at 9 and Exhibit D at 5-8.) Thomas fails to show how the mere presence of

Halstrom’s signature somehow invalidated the plea agreement and guilty plea, especially

where Thomas consented to Halstrom’s assistance in the plea negotiations and guilty plea

proceedings. Therefore, Thomas is not entitled to any relief based on this claim.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by Thomas be denied, as the claims therein entitle him to no

relief.

It is further

5

Case 2:07-cv-00638-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 04/01/09 Page 5 of 6
ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before April 14, 2009. A party must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections

will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed

findings and recommendations shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on

appeal factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of

plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See

Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

Done, this 1st day of April, 2009.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:07-cv-00638-MEF-SRW Document 15 Filed 04/01/09 Page 6 of 6