Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190930_0003119.MFL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 23:56:02
Document Index: 578498531

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 851', '§ 841', '§ 851', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 3', '§ 893', '§ 3']

FindACase™ | Hyppolite v. United States
Hyppolite v. United States
JOPHANEY HYPPOLITE, Petitioner,
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jophaney Hyppolite's (Petitioner or Hyppolite) pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Cr. Doc. #671; Cv. Doc. #1)[1] and Memorandum of Law to Support (Cr. Doc. #672; Cv. Doc. #2) filed on April 21, 2016. The United States filed a Response in Opposition on May 23, 2016, to which Petitioner filed a Reply on June 8, 2016. (Cv. Docs. #8; #9). Petitioner also filed a Sworn Declaration on September 18, 2017. (Cv. Doc. #12-5). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's § 2255 motion is denied.
Also pending before the Court are Petitioner's Motion to Amend (Cv. Doc. #10), Motion for Leave to Amend His Original Pending Motion to Vacate (Cv. Doc. #11), and Third Amendment to Motion to Vacate (Cv. Doc. #12). Hyppolite's motions to amend are granted to the extent the Court will consider these claims as set forth below.
On September 5, 2012, a federal grand jury in Fort Myers, Florida returned a twelve-count Second Superseding Indictment charging Petitioner and six co-defendants with various drug offenses. (Cr. Doc. #282). Count One charged Petitioner and six others with conspiracy to manufacture, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of 280 grams or more of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 846. (Id., pp. 1-2). In addition to the conspiracy, Petitioner was charged in Count Six with knowing and willful distribution and aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, on or about June 29, 2011, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In Count Eleven, Hyppolite was charged with knowing and willful distribution and aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine on or about September 27, 2011 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On September 14, 2012, the government filed a notice of intent to enhance Hyppolite's sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 851 because he had at least two qualifying prior drug convictions. (Cr. Doc. #324).
The Court conducted an eleven-day trial. After the government's case-in-chief, defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal on Counts One, Six, and Eleven. (Cr. Doc. #497, pp. 72-73). The Court granted the motion as to Count Six only, finding the government's witness did not identify Hyppolite as a participant in the controlled buy on June 29, 2011. (Id., pp. 83-84). On October 5, 2012, the jury returned a verdict finding Hyppolite guilty of Counts One and Eleven. (Cr. Doc. #383, pp. 1, 7). As to Count One, the jury found that the amount of cocaine base involved in the conspiracy was more than 280 grams. (Id., pp. 2-3).
Hyppolite was sentenced on January 23, 2013. (Cr. Doc. #449). Because Hyppolite was found guilty of a conspiracy involving more than 280 grams of cocaine based under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and had three prior felony drug convictions, he faced a mandatory term of life imprisonment. The undersigned sentenced Petitioner to a term of life imprisonment as to Count One, and 30 years of imprisonment as to Count Eleven, to be served concurrently. (Cr. Doc. #449, p. 2). In addition, the undersigned imposed a term of supervised release of ten years as to Count One and six years as to Count Eleven to run concurrently. (Id., p. 3).
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on January 27, 2013. (Cr. Doc. #452). On direct appeal, Hyppolite raised the following six issues: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for a single conspiracy under Count One; (2) he was denied due process due to the particular informants who participated in the government's investigation; (3) the district court failed to provide a multiple conspiracy jury instruction and submit a special verdict for finding individual drug quantity attributable to Hyppolite; (4) the district court erred in imposing the drug premises enhancement; (5) the district court erred in imposing the manager role enhancement; and (6) the government's 21 U.S.C. § 851 notice was defective, misleading, and unconstitutional. (See Appellant's Br., United States v. Hyppolite, 13-10471 (11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2013)). On June 25, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Petitioner's convictions. See United States v. Hyppolite, 609 Fed.Appx. 597, 612 (11th Cir. 2015). Hyppolite did not petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now, Hyppolite seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The government concedes that he timely filed his § 2255 motion (Cv. Doc. #8, p. 4), and the Court agrees.
The same deficient performance and prejudice standards apply to appellate counsel. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285-86 (2000); see also Roe, 528 U.S. at 476-77. If the Court finds there has been deficient performance, it must examine the merits of the claim omitted on appeal. If the omitted claim would have had a reasonable probability of success on appeal, then the deficient performance resulted in prejudice. See Joiner v. United States, 103 F.3d 961, 963 (11th Cir. 1997). Counsel is not deficient for failing to raise non-meritorious claims on direct appeal. See Diaz v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., 402 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (11th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner raises a total of seven grounds for relief.[2]First, Petitioner argues trial counsel erred in failing to object to the Court's imposition of two separate sentences for his offenses when they were grouped together under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d) for the purpose of calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. (Cr. Docs. #671, p. 4; #672, pp. 3-4; Cv. Doc. #1, p. 4; #2, pp. 3-4). Second, Petitioner argues (a) trial and appellate counsel failed to assert that the district court erred in failing to find the amount of crack cocaine attributable to him for sentencing purposes and (b) trial counsel failed to argue the evidence was insufficient to find the entire amount of crack cocaine involved in the conspiracy was attributable to him. (Cr. Docs. #671, pp. 5-6; #672, pp. 4-5; Cv. Docs. #1, pp. 5-6; #2, pp. 4-5; #11). Third, Hyppolite asserts trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the calculation of his criminal history points.[3] (Cr. Docs. #671, p. 7; #672, pp.5-6; Cv. Doc. #1, p. 7; #2, pp. 5-6).
Fourth, Petitioner claims appellate counsel erred in failing to assert on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to convict him under Count Eleven. (Cr. Doc. #671, pp. 8-9; #672, pp. 6-7; Cv. Doc. #1, pp. 8-9; #2, pp. 6-7). Fifth, Petitioner contends appellate counsel failed to raise on appeal that Hyppolite's mere presence in the illegal activities was insufficient to sustain his conviction for conspiracy under Count One. (Cr. Doc. #672, pp. 7-8; Cv. Doc. #2, pp. 7-8). Sixth, Petitioner claims, pursuant to Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), that his prior conviction under Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1) does not qualify him as a career offender for purposes of sentencing, and thus he must be resentenced. (Cv. Doc. #10). Lastly, he argues trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea discussions. (Cv. Doc. #12). The Court addresses each in turn.
A. Ground One: Failure to Object to Imposition of Separate Sentences
Petitioner first argues defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to the District Court's imposition of two separate sentences for his offenses of convictions when the offenses were grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d) to calculate his Guidelines range. (Cr. Docs. #671, p. 4; #672, pp. 3-4; Cv. Doc. #1, p. 4; #2, pp. 3-4). He also states appellate counsel erred in failing to assert this argument on appeal. (Cr. Docs. #671, p. 4; #672, pp. 3-4; Cv. Doc. #1, p. 4; #2, pp. 3-4). The government maintains, in part, that Petitioner cannot show prejudice because he confronted a mandatory life sentence under Count One, which superseded his otherwise-applicable Guidelines range. (Cv. Doc. #8, pp. 8-10). The Court agrees with the government.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Although Hyppolite&#39;s conspiracy and distribution convictions were grouped for the purposes of calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range, the Court imposed separate sentences as to each conviction. Petitioner says the imposition of two sentences amounted to procedural error. The Court disagrees. Indeed, the former Fifth Circuit has admonished judges to avoid general sentences because it is more desirable to impose a separate sentence on each count. See United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979) (citation omitted) (“We reiterate, however, that such general sentences are bad business, leaving all, including this Court, in a state of uncertainty as to just what has been done. All the defendant, probation officers, this Court, and prison/parole authorities should be informed of the specific sentence on each ...