2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-22-2009 

# U SA v . J ohnson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2396

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . J o hn s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 624. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/624NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 2396

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T I M OT HY J OHNS ON a / k/ a SW I FT a / k / a BA NANNA S T i m othyJ ohns on, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00211- 8 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames F. M cC l ur e

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember17, 2009 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F U E N T E S , and S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed Sept ember22, 2009)

____ OP I NI ON2

S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . T i m ot hyJ ohns on chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw h i s g u i l t yp l e a . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. John son w as a l eader i n the “Se x, M on ey , M urder” subgrou p o f t he “B l oo ds” s t r eetgang, w hi ch enga ged i n drug di s t r i but i on i n W i l l i amspor t , Penns y l vani a. B etw een 2003 and A ugus t2005, m ember s of the gang br ought50 t o 200 br i cks of her oi n fr om N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , t o W i l l i amspor tfordi s t r i but i on. A ccor di ng t o t he Pr es ent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) , on t hr ee oc cas i ons J ohns on r ece i ved a c al l forthe pur chas e of he r oi n and B a ld w in d e liv e re d th e h e ro in to a c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t. “J o h n so n c o n ten d s th a t h is inv o lvem en t w as li m it ed to p erm itti n g B aldw in to b o rrow h is cell p h o n e.” A p p ell an t’ s B r . at7. A fede r al gr and j ur yi n W i l l i amspor tr eturned a 14- counti ndi ctm entnami ng J ohns on and ni ne co- cons pi r at or s . J ohns on w as i ndi ct ed on one c ountof i l l egal m e m b e rsh ip in a stre e t g a n g in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 5 2 1 , o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto di s t r i but e, and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, m or e than fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, her oi n, ecs t acy , coca i ne, and mar i j uana w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , an d th re e c o u n ts o f d istrib u tio n a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te her oi n w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 860, and 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . S u b se q u e n tly , the U .S . A tto rn e yf o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia3

fi l ed a Super cedi ng I nform at i on agai ns tJ ohns on, char gi ng a s i ngl e countof cons pi r acy

“ t o p o s s e s s wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e a n d t o d i s t r i b u t e [ h e r o i n ] . . . i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( a) ( 1) . ” A pp. at20. T h e re a f ter , Jo h n so n e n ter e d in to a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t in w h ich h e a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto th e o n e -c o u n t in f o rm a tio n in e x c h a n g e f

o r th e d ism iss a l o f

th e f iv e c o u n ts agai ns thi m fr om t he ea r l i eri ndi ctm ent . T he pl ea a gr eementexpr es s l ypr ovi ded that John son’s m axim um po ssi ble s entence of incarcer at i on w as 20 y ears . W hen J ohns on ent er ed hi s gui l t ypl ea be for e the D i s t r i ctC our t , the pr os ecut or expl ai ned t o hi m t he t erm s of the pl ea a gr eement , and J ohns on acknow l edged, underoath, t hathe had r ead the pl ea a gr eement , thathe had di s cus s ed i tw i t h hi s couns el , and thathe h a d n o t b e e n th re a ten e d o r c o e rc e d in to sig n in g it. T he C our texpl ai ned the el ement s of cons pi r acyand J ohns on acknow l edged thathe under s t ood t hi s expl anat i on. I n addi t i on, the pr os ecut ordes cr i bed J ohns on’ s r ol e i n the cons pi r acy , s t at i ng t hatJ ohns on “pr ovi ded the t el ephone on [ t hr ee] occa s i on[s ] thatw as us ed t o m ake the phone c al l [t o s etup t he contr ol l ed s al es of her oi n] and that[J ohns on] knew t hatw hen he w as pr ovi di ng t he phone ther e w as goi ng t o be a tr ans act i on i nvol vi ng t he s al e of he r oi n, ” and thatt he cons pi r acyi nvol ved betw een 100 a nd 400 gr ams of her oi n. A pp. at105. J ohns on acknow l edged thathe agr eed w i t h t hatchar act er i zat i on. A l t hough t he pr os ecut i on di d noty ethave J ohns on’ s compl et e cr i m i nal hi s t ory , t he p ro s e c u to r s ta te d th a t “ [ h ]e c o u ld v e ry w e ll b e a c a re e r c ri m in a l . . . , w h ic h w o u ld . . .J ohns on w as s ent ence d pur s uant t o t he 2006 ver s i on of the 1 U SSG . H e w as char act er i zed as a car eer offe nderbeca us e ( 1) he w as atl eas tei ght een w hen he c om m i t t ed t he i ns t antoffe ns e, ( 2) t he i ns t antoffe ns e w as a fe l onyconvi ct i on fora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, and ( 3) he had a tl eas ttw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons for c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e s . See U S S G § 4 B 1 .1 . A ft ert he s ubm i s s i on of the i ni t i al PSR , butbefor e the 2 s ubm i s s i on of the r evi s ed ver s i on, J ohns on s enta l ett ert o the D i s t r i ct C our t r eques t i ng t hat “hi s couns el be r epl ace d and hi s pl ea ‘ pul l ed bac k. ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on, N o . 4 :0 5 - C R - 2 1 1 , at 1 (Jan . 9, 2007) . J ohns on’ s couns el acknow l edged thatt he 4 [m ake hi s r ange unde rt he U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual ( “U SSG ” or “G ui del i nes ”) ] 151 t o 188 m ont hs . ” A pp. at100- 01. O n fours epar at e occ as i ons dur i ng h is plea c o ll o q u y , Jo h n so n w as in fo rm ed that the m ax im u m p en altyh e f ac ed w as 2 0 y ea rs i ncar cer at i on. M or eover , eac h of the thr ee t i m es he w as as ked i f he unde r s t ood t hathe c o u ld b e s e n te n c e d to u p to 2 0 y e a rs , h e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e d id . A ft e rJ oh ns on e nt e r e d h i s gu i l t ypl e a , the Pr ob a t i on O ff i c e pr e pa r e d a n i ni t i a l PSR and l at ers ubm i t t ed a r evi s ed ver s i on. T he r evi s ed PSR cal cul at ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 3 2 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryo f V I be ca u se Jo h n so n w as f o u n d to b e a ca ree r of

fe n d er. 1 G i ven thes e ca l cul at i ons , as w el l as the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence of 20 y ear s under21 U . S. C . §§ 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) and 846, J ohns on’ s G ui del i nes r ange w as 210 t o 240 m ont hs im p riso n m e n t. Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , J ohns on fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea, ar gui ng t hat hi s G ui del i nes r ange w as “unfa i rand unj us ti n l i ghtof the [l es s er ] s ent ence s i m pos ed upon hi s co- defe ndant s . ” A pp. at50. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thi s m ot i on, and 2“att or ney - cl i entr el at i ons hi p [w a] s i r r etr i evabl ybr oken, and r eques t [ed] t hathe be pe r m i t t ed t o w i t hdr aw hi s appea r ance as J ohns on’ s couns el . ” Id
. at2. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed J ohns on new cou n se l a n d den i ed w i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce his pro se m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . Th e Di s t r i c t Co u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 3 § 3231 and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 5 sent enced John son to 140 m on t hs i ncarcerat i on (al m ostsi x y ears below the G uidel i nes’ m inim u m o f 2 1 0 m o n ths). 3 II. Jo h n so n c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea on the bas i s t hat( 1) hi s pl ea w as notknow i ng, i nt el l i gent , and vol unt arybeca us e he di d notunder s t and i t s cons equenc es unt i l he r evi ew ed the PSR and ( 2) thatthe cons equenc es of hi s pl ea w er e “unf ai rand unj us ti n l i ghtof the [l es s er ] s ent ence s im p o s e d u p o n h is c o -d e f e n d a n ts .” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 3 . W e re je c t b o th a rg u m e n ts . John son argu es that hi s pl ea w as not kno w i ng , i ntel l i gen t , and vo l un t arybecau se he di d not“ful l yunder s t and[] t he cons equenc es orel ement s of the cha r ge t o w hi ch he pleaded g uil t y . ” A pp el l ant’ s B r. at11 . W e revi ew this argum ent for pl ai n err or becau se h e d id n o t r a is e it b e f

o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Knobl och , 131 F. 3d 366, 3 7 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). B ot h t he pr os ecut orand the D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned t o J ohns on the cons equenc es of hi s gui l t ypl ea. A s not ed above , J ohns on acknow l edged thathe w as i nvol ved i n t he drug cons pi r acy , t hathe had r ead the pl ea a gr eementand under s t ood i t s t erm s , thathe had6

di s cus s ed i tw i t h couns el , t hathe w as notthr eat ened orcoer ced i nt o s i gni ng i t , and thathe u n d e rs to o d h is m a x im u m p o te n tia l p ri s o n s e n te n c e to b e 2 0 y e a rs . I ndeed, J ohns on w as i nform ed fourt i m es dur i ng hi s pl ea c ol l oquythathe fa ced up t o 20 y ear s i n pr i s on. Fi r s t , t he pr os ecut oradvi s ed hi m of thatpos s i bi l i t yand J ohns on acknow l edged thathe under s t ood. L at er , the pr os ecut orr epea t ed the s t atut orym axi m um an d the D istri ct C o u rtask ed Jo h n so n if h e u n d erstoo d it , “[ p ]arti cu larl ythe 2 0 y ea rs i ncar cer at i on?” A pp. at93. J ohns on acknow l edged thathe di d. T hen, fora fourt h t i m e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadvi s ed J ohns on t hathi s s t atut orym axi m um w as 20 y ear s and J ohns on a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e u n d e rs to o d . T hus , “[t ] he r ecor d conce r ni ng [J ohns on’ s ] pl ea c ol l oquydemonstr at es that[he] had an a dequat e under s t andi ng of the cha r ges t o w hi ch [he ] w as pl eadi ng gui l t y , ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . T

a n n is , 942 F. 2d 196, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1991) , and of the fa ctthathe fa ced a s m uch a s 2 0 y e a rs in p ri s o n , s ee P arry v. R osem eyer, 64 F. 3d 110, 114 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “A pl ea of gui l t yw i l l notbe found t o be unknow i ng and i nvol unt aryi n t he abs ence of pr oof that th e d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t ad v ise d o f , o r d id n o t u n d e rsta n d , the d ire c t co n se q u e n c e s o f h is p le a .” ), s uper cede d by s tat ut e on othergr ounds as r ecogni z ed i n D i cke rs on v. V

aughn , 90 F . 3 d 8 7 (3rd C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). J ohns on al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea be caus e hi s co- defe ndant s w er e perm i t t ed t o pl ead t o l es s eroffe ns es and w er e s ent ence d t o s hor t ert erm s of i m pr i s onm ent . W e r ever s e a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a7

m o tio n to w ith d ra w a g u ilty p le a o n ly if th e d e n ia l w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 2 5 0 F .3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). F u rth e r, “[ w ]e lo o k to th re e f a c to rs to eval uat e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw : ( 1) w hetherthe def endantas s ert s [hi s ] i nnocenc e; ( 2) w hethert he governm entw oul d be pr ej udi ced bythe w i t hdr aw al ; and ( 3) the s t r ength of t he def endant ’ s r eas on t o w i t hdr aw the pl ea. ” Id
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that J ohns on fai l ed t o m eett he fi r s tand thi r d pr ongs of thi s t es tand thati tneed notdet erm i ne, undert he s econd pr ong, w hethert he governm entw oul d s uffe rpr ej udi ce. W e agr ee. A s t o t he fi r s tpr ong, atno poi nthas J ohns on as s ert ed hi s i nnocenc e. W hen he ent er ed hi s gui l t ypl ea, he ac know l edged, underoath, thathe w as i nvol ved i n a cons pi r acy t o di s t r i but e 100 t o 400 gr ams of her oi n. W i t h r es pectt o the thi r d fac t or , the s t r ength of hi s r eas ons t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea a r e i nadequa t e. A s the D i s t r i ctC our tobs erved,

“ [ Jo h n so n ’s] so le r e a so n f o r w ith d ra w in g h is p lea a p p e a rs to b e th a t h e is u n h a p p yw ith th e g u id e lin e ra n g e se t o u t in th e P S R .” A p p . at 5 -6 . H o w e v e r, w e h a v e h e ld th a t a “s i m pl e s hi fti n defe ns e t act i cs , a cha nge of mi nd, orthe fe arof puni s hm entar e not adequa t e r eas ons t o for ce the governm entt o i ncurthe expe ns e, di ffi cul t yand r i s k of t r y i ng a def

endant , w ho has al r eadyacknow l edged hi s gui l tbefor e the court . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 9 7 9 F .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), s uper cede d by s tat ut e as r ecogni z ed by U ni t ed Stat es v. R obers on , 1 9 4 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). III . F o r th e a b o v e -sta ted re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e d e n ial o f

Jo h n so n ’s m o tio n to8

w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea.