Source: http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191211_0004044.SOH.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 08:32:41
Document Index: 778508386

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 841', '§ 846', '§ 2255']

FindACase™ | United States v. Stargell
DARION STARGELL, Defendant.
This is an action on a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 brought pro se by Defendant Darion Stargell to obtain relief from his drug trafficking related convictions in this Court. The Motion is before the Court for initial review pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings which provides:
The District Judges at the Dayton location of court have referred all post-judgment collateral attacks on convictions to the undersigned pursuant to General Order DAY 13-01. The case remains assigned for disposition to District Judge Thomas M. Rose.
Defendant asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel in three ways. First, he asserts his trial attorney was ineffective for not challenging the 28 U.S.C.§ 846 conviction (Motion, ECF No. 185, PageID 638-39). Second, he asserts his trial attorney did not make the government prove the mens rea required for 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). Id. at PageID 640-44. Finally, he asserts his appellate attorney was ineffective for abandoning him. Id. at PageID 644-46.
Stargell was indicted with two others on April 13, 2017, and charged in Count One with conspiring to distribute fentanyl in the amount of 400 grams or more, and an unspecified amount of tramadol, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), (C), and (E). In Count Two he was charged with distributing 100 grams or more of fentanyl and an unspecified amount of tramadol in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) and (E)(ECF No. 29). A Second Superseding Indictment was filed May 25, 2017 (ECF No. 51).
On September 11, 2017, Stargell agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute heroin and fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). (ECF No. 98.) He agreed that he was guilty of the offense. In particular he agreed to the following statement of facts:
Between late 2016 and early 2017, in the Dayton, Ohio area, defendant Darion Stargell worked with other people, including Sergio Candelas-Ruiz and Lizabeth Ruiz, to receive and to distribute bulk quantities of heroin and fentanyl. Throughout this time, the Ruizes arranged for couriers sent from Mexico to bring large quantities of controlled substances to Mr. Stargell in the Dayton metropolitan area. Upon obtaining these illegal drugs, Mr. Stargell resold them to other drug dealers in southern Ohio.
Id. at PageID 264. On September 13, 2017, Stargell appeared before Judge Rose, acknowledged that he had signed the plea agreement (including the statement of facts) knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and then pleaded guilty as required by the plea agreement (Minute Entry, ECF No. 99; Transcript, ECF No. 151). Judgment was entered on the plea on March 9, 2018 (ECF No. 143). Although he had voluntarily waived appeal (with exceptions not relevant here), he filed a Notice of Appeal through counsel (ECF No. 176). The Sixth Circuit appointed new counsel on June 21, 2019 (ECF No. 179), but that counsel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal at Stargell's direction on October 15, 2019. This § 2255 Motion to Vacate was timely filed thereafter on December 9, 2019.[1]
Standard for Proving Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
All three of Stargell's claim are based on his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. The governing standard for ineffective assistance of trial counsel was adopted by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984):
466 U.S. at 687. In other words, to establish ineffective assistance, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Berghuis v. Thompkins,560 U.S. 370, 389 (2010), quoting Knowl ...