Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_99-cr-00114/USCOURTS-azd-3_99-cr-00114-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bobby Joe Keesee
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Bobby Joe Keesee, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 99-0114-PHX-RGS

CV-03-1594-PHX-RGS (VAM)

ORDER

Defendant Bobby Joe Keesee, currently confined at the United States Prison and

Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri, filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255. [Doc. # 55] In response, the government

filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. # 74] Movant filed several responses to the

government’s motion. [Docs. ## 81, 84, 85] Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Virginia A.

Mathis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the government’s motion

to dismiss be granted and that Movant’s motion to vacate be denied. [Doc. # 89] Movant did

not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the

parties' motions and the responses thereto, as well as the entire record before it. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.

/ / /

Case 3:99-cr-00114-RGS Document 108 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

On November 1, 1999, Movant pleaded guilty to five counts as charged in the Second

Superseding Indictment filed on October 27, 1999 [Doc. # 40]: Count 1, Attempted Aircraft

Piracy, in violation of Title 49, U.S.C. § 46502; Count 2, Interference with Commerce by

Threats or Violence, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 1951; Count 4, Discharge of a Firearm

During a Crime of Violence Causing a Death by Murder, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. §

924(c)(1) and 924(j)(1); Count 5, Interstate Transportation of a Stolen Aircraft, in violation

of Title 18, U.S.C. § 2312; and Count 6, Felon in Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition,

in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). [Doc. # 49] 

On March 31, 2000, the Court sentenced Movant to two life sentences “without the

possibility of release under any circumstances,” consistent with the written plea agreement.

[Doc. # 43] Movant did not file a direct appeal.

On August 18, 2003, Movant filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. # 55] Movant raises two grounds for relief:

(1) that the plea was unlawfully induced by the court-appointed attorney so that "he could

dispose of a case that he did not want to handle," and (2) that Defendant "knew [he] was

going to prison" so he pleaded guilty in reliance upon his attorney's alleged promise that he

could serve his sentence in Germany in order to be with his wife and family. 

In response, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that (1) Movant’s

motion is untimely, and (2) Movant waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his

conviction and sentence. [Doc. # 74] Movant filed a Response to the government’s motion,

alleging that he was “under the threat of what the government would do to his wife if he did

not enter a plea of guilty” and that he was told by his attorney that he would “be allowed to

serve [his] sentence in a prison located in Germany.” Movant requested to withdraw the plea

and have a trial by jury. [Doc. # 81]

/ / /

/ / /

II. DISCUSSION

Case 3:99-cr-00114-RGS Document 108 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

A. Untimeliness of Movant’s § 2255 Motion

Title 28, U.S.C. § 2255 states as follows:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.

The limitation period shall run from the latest of—

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction became final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by

governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a

motion by such governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the

Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized . . . ; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

Here, there are no facts alleged by Movant that would alter the application of the one-year

period of limitations beginning on the date on which the judgment of conviction became

final. The statute of limitations within which Movant had to file his § 2255 motion began

to run upon the expiration of the time during which he could have sought review by direct

appeal. United States v. Schwartz, 274 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001). Movant did not file

a direct appeal, thus his conviction became final on April 18, 2000, which was ten days after

the Court entered its Judgment on April 7, 2000. Movant therefore had one year from April

18, 2000 within which to file his § 2255 motion. Movant filed his motion on August 18,

2003, more than two years after the limitations period had expired. Movant has set forth no

allegations that would provide a basis for equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Court agrees

with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that Movant’s § 2255 motion is barred by the

one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and will adopt the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation that Movant’s § 2255 motion be denied on this basis.

B. Waiver of Right to Collaterally Attack Conviction

Notwithstanding the Court’s determination above that Movant failed to timely file his

§ 2255 motion, after reviewing the record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

conclusion that Movant’s guilty plea is valid and that Movant waived his right to file a §

Case 3:99-cr-00114-RGS Document 108 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

2255 motion. The waiver of the right to directly appeal or collaterally attack the conviction

and sentence is found in the written plea agreement and states as follows:

Defendant hereby waives any right to raise on appeal or collaterally attack any

matter pertaining to this prosecution and sentence if the sentence imposed is

consistent with the terms of this agreement.

[Doc. # 43 at p. 6] This waiver agreement was acknowledged by Movant in the written plea

agreement [Doc. # 43 at pp. 23-24], discussed with Movant during the change of plea

colloquy [Doc. # 73 at p. 20], and discussed with Movant at his sentencing [Doc. # 72 at p.

24]. At the sentencing, the Court advised Movant that the sentence was in accord with the

plea agreement and therefore he had waived any right to appeal or collaterally attack the

proceeding. [Id.] As the Magistrate Judge noted, the Court spent much time during the

change of plea colloquy establishing that Movant was competent and understood all aspects

of the plea agreement, that Movant entered the plea voluntarily, and that Movant understood

that the stipulated sentence meant that he would never be released from prison. At the

sentencing, counsel stated that “Mr. Keesee will die an inmate of the Bureau of Prisons,” thus

indicating that Movant and his attorney understood that Movant would spend the rest of his

life in the custody of the BOP. [Id. at p. 21] Movant indicated that he was satisfied with the

representation he received from his attorney. [Id. at 15] Accordingly, because Movant’s

guilty plea was valid and his sentence was within the range set forth in the plea agreement,

his waiver of the right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence is valid. See United

States v. Abarca, 985 F.2d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1993). 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

[Doc. # 89]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the government’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

[Doc. # 74]

Case 3:99-cr-00114-RGS Document 108 Filed 09/24/07 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2255. [Doc. # 55]

Movant has filed numerous motions, all of which relate to his § 2255 Motion to

Vacate. The Court has reviewed each of these motions, as well as any responses thereto.

Movant presents the same arguments in these motions as he does in his § 2255 Motion to

Vacate and in his Response to the government’s Motion to Dismiss. In light of the Court’s

ruling above,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motions for Appointment of

Counsel [Docs. ## 90, 101, 103];

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motions to Withdraw Guilty Plea

[Docs. ## 83, 93, 98, 103];

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motions for a New Trial [Docs.

## 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 103];

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motion by the Defendant to Allow

Him to Serve His Sentence in Germany on a Prisoner Exchange [Doc. # 92]; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s Motions for Release from Custody

[Docs. ## 96, 99]; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Movant’s supplemental Motions to Vacate,

Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docs. ## 97, 105].

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:99-cr-00114-RGS Document 108 Filed 09/24/07 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

In view of the Court’s orders denying Movant’s Motions to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and all of his other pending motions,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying, without prejudice, Movant’s Request to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis. [Doc. # 106]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in

accordance with this order.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2007.

Case 3:99-cr-00114-RGS Document 108 Filed 09/24/07 Page 6 of 6