Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180220_0000161.SAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:55:58+00:00

Document:
KATHERINE P. NELSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Sherman Dunning, a federal prisoner proceeding through retained counsel, has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 44). The Court has referred the petition to the undersigned Magistrate Judge who, under S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R), is authorized require responses, issue orders to show cause and any other orders necessary to develop a complete record, and to prepare a report and recommendation to the District Judge as to appropriate disposition of these proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 8(b) and 10 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (4/27/2017 electronic referral).
As ordered under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (see Doc. 45), the Government has timely filed a response (Doc. 48) in opposition to Dunning's § 2255 motion, and Dunning has timely filed a reply (Doc. 49) to the response. The motion is now under submission for determination of whether expansion of the record and/ or an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See (Doc. 45 at 2); Rules 7 and 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions in accordance with Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the undersigned finds that neither expansion of the record nor an evidentiary hearing is not warranted and that Dunning's § 2255 motion (Doc. 44) is due be DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice.
On July 30, 2015, the grand jury for this judicial district issued a 4-count indictment against Dunning alleging various drug crimes. (Doc. 14). On September 28, 2015, Dunning, represented by appointed counsel and pursuant to a written plea agreement, pled guilty to Count 4 of the indictment, alleging an offense of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (See Docs. 23, 29). Prior to sentencing, the Government filed a motion for downward departure pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, requesting that Dunning's sentence “be reduced by (25%) twenty-five percent from the low end of [his] sentencing guidelines.” (Doc. 39). On April 11, 2016, the Court, after granting the Government's motion for downward departure (see Doc. 40), sentenced Dunning to 75 months of imprisonment, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release, and an assessment of $100. (See Doc. 41). The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed on motion of the Government, and written judgment was entered April 13, 2016. (See id.). Dunning took no direct appeal. Through new, retained counsel, Dunning filed the present § 2255 motion (Doc. 44) on April 24, 2017.
A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence ... If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence him or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.
“Once the defendant's chance to appeal has been waived or exhausted, ” a court is “entitled to presume he stands fairly and finally convicted, especially when, as here, he already has had a fair opportunity to present his federal claims to a federal forum.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 164 (1982). “[A] collateral challenge, such as a § 2255 motion, may not be a surrogate for a direct appeal.” Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing Frady, 456 U.S. at 165 (collecting cases)). “Because collateral review is not a substitute for a direct appeal, the general rules have developed that: (1) a defendant must assert all available claims on direct appeal, and (2) relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for that narrow compass of other injury that could not have been raised in direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1232 (internal citations, quotations, and footnote omitted).
The “‘concern with finality served by the limitation on collateral attack has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas.'” Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998) (quoting United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979)). “A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional challenges to the constitutionality of the conviction, and only an attack on the voluntary and knowing nature of the plea can be sustained.” Wilson v. United States, 962 F.2d 996, 997 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, e.g., United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2014) (“‘A guilty plea, since it admits all the elements of a formal criminal charge, waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against a defendant.'” (quoting United States v. Fairchild, 803 F.2d 1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)); United States v. Saac, 632 F.3d 1203, 1208 (11th Cir. 2011) (“ ‘Generally, entering a guilty plea waives a defendant's right to all non-jurisdictional challenges to a conviction.' ” (quoting United States v. Bonilla, 579 F.3d 1233, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009)). Stated differently, “a voluntary and intelligent plea made by an accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be collaterally attacked.” Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 508 (1984). Therefore, when, as here, a § 2255 motion is filed collaterally challenging convictions obtained pursuant to guilty pleas, “the inquiry is ordinarily confined to whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989). See also Bousley, 523 U.S. at 618 (“A plea of guilty is constitutionally valid only to the extent it is ‘voluntary' and ‘intelligent.' (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)).
Once a petitioner files a § 2255 motion, “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall ... grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” [28 U.S.C.] § 2255(b). A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he “alleges facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Aron[ v. United States], 291 F.3d [708, ] 715[ (11th Cir. 2002)] (quoting Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545, 1552 (11th Cir. 1989)). “[A] petitioner need only allege-not prove-reasonably specific, non-conclusory facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Id. at 715 n.6. However, a district court need not hold a hearing if the allegations are “patently frivolous, ” “based upon unsupported generalizations, ” or “affirmatively contradicted by the record.” Holmes, 876 F.2d at 1553 (quoting United States v. Guerra, 588 F.2d 519, 520- 21 (5th Cir. 1979)); see, e.g., Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Because the ... affidavits submitted by Lynn amount to nothing more than mere conclusory allegations, the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues and correctly denied Lynn's § 2255 motion.”).
Winthrop-Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216 (footnote omitted). Accord, e.g., Diveroli v. United States, 803 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2015).
Dunning alleges four separate but related grounds for relief under § 2255. In brief, Dunning alleges that the evidence underlying the charges in the indictment was discovered through execution of a search warrant that was “fatally defective, …illegal and invalid[, ]” thus violating Dunning's right against unreasonable search and seizure under the United States Constitution. Dunning further alleges that his trial counsel failed to obtain the search warrant during discovery. Had counsel done so and reviewed the warrant, Dunning claims, counsel would have discovered it was defective, and accordingly would have filed a likely successful motion to suppress the evidence seized. Dunning further alleges that had he “known of the potential issues of suppression and the search warrant affidavit and warrant he would not have entered his plea of guilty prior to having the issue of suppression heard by the court.” Accordingly, Dunning also alleges that his trial counsel provided unconstitutionally ineffective assistance.
The Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const., amend. VI; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86 (1984). “[F]ailure to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal does not bar the claim from being brought in a later, appropriate proceeding under § 2255.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 509 (2003). Indeed, “in most cases a motion brought under § 2255 is preferable to direct appeal for deciding claims of ineffective assistance.” Id. at 504. See also United States v. Curbelo, 726 F.3d 1260, 1267 (11th Cir. 2013) (“An ineffective assistance claim should usually be raised in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” (citing United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2010))), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 962 (2014). “To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) ‘counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness' and (2) that such failure prejudiced him in that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'” United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938, 941 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694).
“‘Conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance are insufficient.'” Wilson v. United States, 962 F.2d 996, 998 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Lawson, 947 F.2d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1991)). Moreover, “[b]ecause both parts of the test must be satisfied in order to show a violation of the Sixth Amendment, the court need not address the performance prong if the defendant cannot meet the prejudice prong, or vice versa.” Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). See also Osley v. United States, 751 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A habeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must carry his burden on both Strickland prongs, and a court need not address both prongs if the defendant has made an insufficient showing on one.”); Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1176 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The petitioner bears the burden of proof on the ‘performance' prong as well as the ‘prejudice' prong of a Strickland claim, and both prongs must be proved to prevail.”). “The Strickland test is not easily met; … ‘the cases in which habeas petitioners can properly prevail on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel are few and far between.'” Johnson, 256 F.3d at 1176 (quoting Waters v. Thomas, 46 F.3d 1506, 1511 (11th Cir. 1995) (en banc) (citation omitted))).
“The test for ineffectiveness is not whether counsel could have done more; perfection is not required.” Waters, 46 F.3d at 1518. Accord, e.g., Burt v. Titlow, 134 S.Ct. 10, 18 (2013) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to perfect counsel; it promises only the right to effective assistance…”). “A lawyer can almost always do something more in every case. But the Constitution requires a good deal less than maximum performance.” Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 960 (11th Cir. 1992).
In evaluating the first, or “performance, ” prong of Strickland, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential.” [Strickland, 466 U.S.] at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. Because retrospective evaluation of a lawyer's performance can be difficult, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that ... the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). A petitioner must identify specific acts or omissions that were not the result of reasonable professional judgment, and a court should deem these acts or omissions deficient only if they “were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. Simply put, the deference afforded an attorney's decision is great and the bar for proving a Sixth Amendment violation is high. In light of the “strong presumption in favor of competence, ” we have held that in order to prove deficient performance, “a petitioner must establish that no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did take.” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Under the second, or “prejudice, ” prong of Strickland, a petitioner must “affirmatively prove prejudice” by showing that counsel's errors “actually had an adverse effect on the defense.” 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S.Ct. at 2067. This requires a showing of more than “some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding.” Id. Instead, the petitioner “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Although this standard is difficult to meet, it is significant that a petitioner must show only a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different; he “need not show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case.” Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. When evaluating this probability, “a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.” Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2069.
Brownlee v. Haley, 306 F.3d 1043, 1059-60 (11th Cir. 2002).
“[T]he failure to file a suppression motion does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel…” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 (1986). “[C]ounsel is not ineffective for failing to file a meritless suppression motion.” Curbelo, 726 F.3d at 1267 (citing Jefferson v. Fountain, 382 F.3d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir. 2004)). However, “[a] failure to file a motion to suppress that is based on a lack of knowledge of the state of the evidence due to counsel's misunderstanding or ignorance of the law or failure to conduct adequate investigations can satisfy Strickland's deficiency prong.” Green v. Nelson, 595 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 383-87). “To obtain relief where an ineffective assistance claim is based on trial counsel's failure to file a timely motion to suppress, a petitioner must prove (1) that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, (2) that the Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious, and (3) that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.” Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citing Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 375). See also Green, 595 F.3d at 1251-52 (“To establish prejudice in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise a Fourth Amendment claim, a defendant must show that (1) the underlying Fourth Amendment issue has merit and (2) there is a ‘reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence....' ” (quoting Kimmelman, 477 at 375)).
The reasonableness of counsel's performance is to be evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances. In making the competency determination, the court should keep in mind that counsel's function, as elaborated in prevailing professional norms, is to make the adversarial testing process work in the particular case. Because that testing process generally will not function properly unless defense counsel has done some investigation into the prosecution's case and into various defense strategies, …counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. But…a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments.
Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 384 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-91) (citations and quotations omitted).
In many guilty plea cases, the “prejudice” inquiry will closely resemble the inquiry engaged in by courts reviewing ineffective-assistance challenges to convictions obtained through a trial. For example, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to investigate or discover potentially exculpatory evidence, the determination whether the error “prejudiced” the defendant by causing him to plead guilty rather than go to trial will depend on the likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea. This assessment, in turn, will depend in large part on a prediction whether the evidence likely would have changed the outcome of a trial.
474 U.S. at 59, 106 S.Ct. at 370; McCoy, 804 F.2d at 1198-99.

References: § 2255
 § 2255
 § 636
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 841
 § 5
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.