Opinion ID: 2975466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentencing and Post-Conviction Proceedings

Text: Petitioner’s offense level and criminal history points resulted in a sentencing range of 168 to 210 months. He was also subject to a mandatory consecutive sentence of 120 months for the firearm charge. The presentence report applied a six-level offense enhancement to the April 8, 1999 bank robbery for “otherwise use” of a firearm in the commission of a felony, under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B). (J.A. 21) Trial counsel’s objection to the enhancement was overruled by the district court. (J.A. 23) Counsel did not raise any other objections. Based on the presentence report’s calculation of the offense levels and criminal history points, the district court sentenced Petitioner 14 to an imprisonment term of 192 months for each of the bank robberies, to be served concurrently, and 120 months for the felony-firearm offense, to be served consecutively. On June 22, 2001, Petitioner appealed the district court’s sentence enhancement, and this Court affirmed the sentence on August 5, 2002. See United States v. Phillips, 42 F. App’x 743 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpublished case). On July 11, 2003, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§ 2255 motion”), on the grounds that 1) his sentence was improperly enhanced; 2) uncounseled juvenile offenses should not have been assigned criminal history points; and 3) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise both of these claims. On August 11, 2003, the district court dismissed the first claim “as frivolous,” but ordered that the government respond to the other claims in the motion. Id. The government’s response indicated that it is in the best interest of all concerned to obtain an affidavit from petitioner[’s] [ ] sentencing attorney to determine what advice was given or relied upon with regard to the criminal history sentencing issue. If . . . [the] attorney correctly determined that the . . . convictions were properly “counted” under the sentencing guidelines, then his ineffective assistance claim must fail. (J.A. 131-32). Trial counsel did not submit an affidavit or otherwise respond to the § 2255 motion. On November 19, 2003, the district court noted that “a one point change would drop Petitioner to a lower criminal history category” and reduce his sentence, (J.A. 146), but denied the § 2255 motion finding that Petitioner “either knowingly waived counsel or was appointed counsel in his state juvenile cases,” id. at 147. Since the district court record did not contain trial counsel’s affidavit and pertinent state court records, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that 15 the court ruled “without a complete record of the state court proceedings.” (J.A. 155) The motion for reconsideration was denied on December 31, 2003.