Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_06-cv-08018/USCOURTS-alnd-5_06-cv-08018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Hewlett
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

RODNEY HEWLETT, )

)

v. ) CR 93-B-137-NE

) CV 06-B-8018-NE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

On March 8, 2004 Rodney Hewlett filed a pleading entitled “Petition for Habeas Corpus ‘Ad

Subjiciendum’ Known as the Great Writ.” The petition is CONSTRUED as a Motion Under 28

U.S.C. Section 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.” In

the pleading, Hewlett states:

This is not a § 2255 motion, and is not governed by

any statutes or rules, this writ is governed by the

Constitution of the United States. .... The Constitution

of the United States provides that “the privilege of

the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,

unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the

public safety may require it.

Hewlett alleges that

the District Court was without proper jurisdiction to

sentence petitioner[] on counts three and five due to

the facts that the Indictment charged petitioner[] with

violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2)....Petitioner was never

charged with 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Therefore, the

District Court erred in sentencing petitioner under the

penalty phase of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and in doing

such, removed the court of its jurisdiction.

I. This motion is untimely

The Great Writ was codified by 28 U.S.C. § § 2241, 2254, and 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is

expressly applicable in those cases wherein a prisoner under a federal sentence claims that “the court

FILED

 2006 May-10 PM 03:04

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:06-cv-08018-SLB-PWG Document 3 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 5
2

was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence.” A federal conviction or sentence is generally

collaterally attacked by filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363,

1365 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900, 124 S.Ct. 258, 157 L.Ed.2d 181 (2003). “Under the th

savings clause of Section 2255, a prisoner may file a Section 2241 petition if an otherwise available

remedy under Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Id.

The fact that § 2255 includes a one year period of limitation in which to file such a motion

does not render the remedy inadequate or ineffective. The Eleventh Circuit has held “that the one

year limitations periods do not per se constitute a suspension of the writ.” Johnson v. United States,

340 F.3d 1219, 1228, n. 8 (11 Cir. 2003), citing Tinker v. Moore, 255 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11 Cir. th th

2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002), and Wyzykowski v. Dep’t of Corr., 226 F.3d 1213 (11th

Cir. 2000).

The statute of limitations runs from the resentencing date rather than the original judgment

date. Maharaj v. Secretary for the Dep’t of Corr., 304 F.3d 1345 (11 Cir. 2002). The judgment, th

however, becomes final on the date that the United States Supreme Court denies certiorari or, if there

was no petition for certiorari filed, on the date on which the defendant’s time for filing such a

petition expires. Kaufmann v. United States, 282 F.3d 1336, 1339 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. th

875 (2002). On February 24, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of

certiorari. Hewlett therefore had until February 25, 1998 in which to timely file a § 2255 motion.

On March 9, 1998 Hewlett was granted an extension of time until April 1, 1998, in which to file his

§ 2255 motion. (Doc. # 104). He did not file a § 2255 motion until March 8, 2004 when he filed

this motion. 

The § 2255 motion is therefore barred by the one year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Case 5:06-cv-08018-SLB-PWG Document 3 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 5
3

II. The motion is without merit.

The indictment reads in pertinent part:

COUNT THREE: (18 USC § 924(c)(2))

The Grand Jury charges:

That on or about the 4 day of April, 1993, in the Northern District th

of Alabama, the defendants,

NORMAN J. MOORE, also known as TEARDROP,

RODNEY HEWLETT

during and in relation to a crime of violence for which they may be

prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, taking of a motor

vehicle from the person or presence of another by force, violence and

intimidation, while possessing a firearm, as charged in Count TWO

of this indictment, did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a .22

caliber pistol, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

924(c).

. . . . 

COUNT FIVE: (18 USC § 924(c)(2))

The Grand Jury charges:

That on or about the 5 day of April, 1993, in the Northern District th

of Alabama, the defendants,

NORMAN J. MOORE, also known as TEARDROP,

RODNEY HEWLETT, and

CARLOS TILLER

and another person known to the grand jury but not named herein,

during an in relation to a crime of violence for which they may be

prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, taking of a motor

vehicle from the person or presence of another by force, violence and

intimidation, while possessing a firearm, as charged in Court Four of

this indictment, did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a .22

caliber pistol, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section

924(c).

Case 5:06-cv-08018-SLB-PWG Document 3 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 5
4

While the headings for Counts Three and Five refer to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), it is clear from

the text of those counts of the indictment that Hewlett was charged with conduct under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1) which provides in pertinent part:

Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of

violence ... (including a crime of violence ... which

provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by

the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device)

for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the

United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in

addition to the punishment provided for such crime of

violence ... be sentenced to imprisonment for five

years, ....

The text of Counts Three and Five clearly placed Hewlett on notice that he was charged with

carjacking while in possession of a firearm. Further, the text of the indictment refers only to §

924(c).

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) provides:

For purposes of this subsection, the term “drug

trafficking crime” means any felony punishable under

the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),

the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21

U.S.C. 951 et seq)., or the Maritime Drug Law

Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.).

This provision is a definition provision and is clearly inapplicable here because Hewlett was not

charged with conduct that would constitute a drug trafficking crime.

The fact that the headings of the charges incorrectly referred to § 924(c)(2) did not deprive

the court of jurisdiction to sentence Hewlett based on the conduct clearly charged within the

indictment and defended by Hewlett. See United States v. Roberts, 308 F.3d 1147, 1156 (11 Cir. th

2002)(typographical errorin indictment was not a fatal variance where “(1) the defendant is properly

Case 5:06-cv-08018-SLB-PWG Document 3 Filed 05/10/06 Page 4 of 5
5

notified of the charges so he may present a defense; and (2) the defendant is protected against the

possibility of another prosecution for the same offense”), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1064, 123 S.Ct.

2232, 155 L.Ed.2d 1119, 71 U.S.L.W. 3735 (2003).

For the reasons expressed above, the § 2255 motion is due to be DENIED as untimely and,

alternatively, without merit. A separate order consistent with this Memorandum of Opinion will be

entered simultaneously herewith.

As to the foregoing it is ORDERED this the 10th day of May, 2006.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:06-cv-08018-SLB-PWG Document 3 Filed 05/10/06 Page 5 of 5