JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Cv. Doc. #1; Cr. Doc. #326)
On May 14, 2014, a federal grand jury in Fort Myers, Florida returned a nine-count Indictment (Cr. Doc. #31) charging petitioner with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 846 (Count One), and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of heroin and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 and § 2 (Count Seven). Petitioner was not charged in the remaining counts.
On March 20, 2015, the jury returned a Verdict (Cr. Doc. #194) of guilty on the conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, but not guilty as to the cocaine base. The jury also returned a guilty verdict on the possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine.
On July 20, 2015, the Court sentenced petitioner to a term of imprisonment of 180 months, followed by a term of supervised release. (Cr. Doc. #237.) Judgment (Cr. Doc. #238) was filed on July 21, 2015. Petitioner timely appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his convictions and sentence on April 12, 2017. (Cr. Doc. #307.) Petitioner did not challenge his sentence on appeal.
Petitioner's current motion was timely filed as the government agrees. (Cv. Doc. #8, p. 5.)
A district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on a habeas petition "unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). "[I]f the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief, then the district court should order an evidentiary hearing and rule on the merits of his claim."
The legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a habeas proceeding is well established. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate both that (1) counsel's performance was deficient because it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) prejudice resulted because there is a reasonable probability that, but for the deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
The proper measure of attorney performance is simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms considering all the circumstances.
Petitioner argues that his sentence should not have been enhanced under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1 because one of the prior offenses used to designate him as a career offender was not a qualifying controlled substance offense. Petitioner argues that the issue was not raised on direct appeal because the basis for the argument did not arise until the decision issued in
Under the 2014 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, petitioner's Base Offense Level was a 24 based on the drug quantity of at least 100 kilograms of marijuana but less than 400 kilograms of marijuana. Petitioner was deemed a career offender because he was at least 25 years old when he committed the current controlled substance offenses, and petitioner had the following two prior felony convictions for a controlled substance offense:
As a career offender, petitioner's Total Offense Level became a 32, and his Criminal History Category was a VI. This provided a range of imprisonment of 210 months to 262 months. At sentencing, counsel argued that petitioner's criminal history was overrepresented, and that for this reason, petitioner had an objection to the career offender application. (Cr. Doc. #284, pp. 13-14.) Counsel argued that the prior drug convictions were for very small quantities, one was $60 worth of drugs, and one of them only had an imposed sentence of 4 months and 28 days. Counsel asked that the criminal history category be reduced to a Category V. (
The Court found that the U.S. Probation Office properly scored petitioner as a career offender but also found it did not preclude the Court from considering a downward departure. (
A defendant is a career offender if he or she was "at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense of conviction"; "the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense"; and "the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a).
U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(b). For a divisible statute like Fla. Stat. § 893.13, the Court uses a "modified categorical approach" by looking at the underlying documents to determine what crime, and with what elements, a defendant was convicted of.
In 2002, it was unlawful "to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance." Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a) (2002). Because the statute provides 6 alternative elements, it is considered a divisible statute.
The 2002 Information reflects charges for the unlawful sale or delivery of cocaine, a Second Degree Felony, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(a), and possession of cocaine, a Third Degree Felony, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a). Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to both counts and was adjudicated guilty. (Cv. Doc. #8-1.)
In late 2005, it was "unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance not authorized by law in, on, or within 1,000 feet of a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organization regularly conducts religious services or within 1,000 feet of a convenience business." Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(e) (2005).
The 2005 Information charged petitioner with cocaine/sale/possess w/intent to sell w/i 1000 FT of a Church or Convenience Store. In Count 1 it states that petitioner did sell, manufacture, or deliver cocaine within 1,000 feet of Liberty City Church, which regularly conducts religious services, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13(1)(e)1. Petitioner entered a plea of guilty and was adjudicated guilty. (Cv. Doc. #8-2.)
It is well settled that Section 893.13(1) is considered both a "serious drug offense" and a "controlled substance offense".
As to the argument that Florida defines sale to include the broader "offer to sell", the Court finds no merit as no such alternative is listed in the statute.
Petitioner argues that counsel did not object to the prior convictions as proper predicate offenses, but rather only questioned the seriousness of the offenses for purposes of the career offender enhancement. Petitioner further argues that counsel failed to preserve an objection to the career offender enhancement for appellate and collateral review. While true statements, the Court finds that the arguments are without merit.
As discussed above, there was no basis to argue that the predicate offenses should not be counted. Both clearly qualified as controlled substance offenses based on the Information filed in each case. The only viable argument that could have been made was that the offenses were actually minor, and counsel was successful in arguing for a variance. Petitioner cannot show prejudice. The motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Cv. Doc. #1; Cr. Doc. #326) is
2. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the civil file. The Clerk is further directed to place a copy of the civil Judgment in the criminal file.
Finally, because Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.