CHARLES A. SHAW, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on federal prisoner Stephen Henderson's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct sentence ("Motion to Vacate"). The government filed a response and movant filed a traverse. An evidentiary hearing was held in this matter on November 10, 2015, at which time both sides were allowed to present evidence. For the following reasons, movant's Motion to Vacate is denied.
On February 14, 2008, Tracy Shelton was arrested with 124 grams of cocaine. Following his arrest, he began cooperating with the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") . Mr. Shelton told agents that movant was the source of his cocaine, and thereafter agents began surveillance on movant. On February 20, 2009, agents set up a meeting between Mr. Shelton and movant. Movant drove Mr. Shelton, who was wearing a recording device, and while they were stopped at a gas station, agents placed a GPS tracker on movant's truck.
On March 5, 2008, Mr. Shelton told agents, on short notice, that movant wanted to meet at his mother's house on Milan Avenue in University City to do an exchange. Prior to the meeting, agents were unable to outfit Mr. Shelton with a recorder or search the residence. Mr. Shelton and movant spoke outside the residence for 30 minutes. Movant left and went to a house at 11128 Bon Jour Court. While movant was gone, agents outfitted Mr. Shelton with a recorder. Movant returned to the house on Milan with a black bag, which he gave to Mr. Shelton. After movant left, contrary to the agents' instructions, Mr. Shelton walked into the Milan residence with the bag. He took some cocaine from the bag and placed it inside a drop ceiling. He then exited the house and gave the agents a black bag with approximately five kilograms of cocaine.
Very early in the morning on March 6, 2008, Mr. Shelton called the agents and told them that he had taken some of the cocaine and placed it in the ceiling of the Milan house. Later that morning the agents met with Mr. Shelton at the house on Milan and retrieved approximately five kilograms of cocaine. Later that day, the agents applied for and received a search warrant for 11128 Bon Jour Court.
On March 10, 2008, agents went to arrest movant at 7301 Sieloff Drive in Hazelwood. Agents waited at least four hours outside the apartment complex before movant emerged. The agents approached movant and cuffed him. One agent read movant his
An agent filled out a consent to search form, and movant signed it. While movant was being questioned at 7301 Sieloff, an agent overheard movant state that there was money in a closet, and even more money at 11128 Bon Jour Court. Agents seized $256,575.00 in cash from the hall closet at 7301Sieloff. The search at Sieloff was completed within 20-30 minutes.
The agents drove movant to the DEA division office while other officers executed the search warrant at 11128 Bon Jour Court. At Bon Jour Court, the agents seized $948,080.00 in cash, a Rolex and two Cartier watches, and a number of financial documents.
At the division office, movant was interrogated for over two hours. An agent read movant his rights from a card. Movant was cooperative and during the interview he identified Julius Turrentine as the source of his cocaine. Movant made a recorded telephone call to Mr. Turrentine, and a number of other calls at the agents' request. Later movant wore a recording device and went to Mr. Turrentine's residence to collect a money counter. Movant was not detained at the division office that day, and he was allowed to leave.
On March 11, 2008, agents had arranged to meet movant in the morning and follow him to the division office. Instead of driving to the division office, movant drove to the law office of N. Scott Rosenblum, and the agents followed. Attorney Rosenblum spoke with movant and an agent inside his office.
On March 12, 2008, the government filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Turrentine, who was later arrested. On March 20, 2008, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Missouri issued an indictment against movant and Mr. Turrentine. Movant was charged in Count I with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Movant was charged in Count II with distribution of in excess of five kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Movant was also charged in Count IV with criminal forfeiture in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853.
A warrant was issued for movant's arrest on March 20, 2008. Movant surrendered himself on March 24, 2008. Movant was brought before a United States Magistrate Judge on March 24, 2008. Attorneys Gilbert C. Sison and N. Scott Rosenblum entered their appearances on movant's behalf. Movant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment.
On May 6, 2008, Mr. Rosenblum filed a Motion to Suppress Statements and Physical Evidence. He also filed a Motion for Disclosure of Confidential Informants, Informers and Cooperating Individuals. On May 20, 2008, the matter came before the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, who was at the time a United States Magistrate Judge.
On August 13, 2008, the government filed a civil forfeiture case against the money and jewelry seized at 11128 Bon Jour Court and 7301 Sieloff Drive, Case Number 4:08-CV-1180. Attorney Sison entered his appearance in that case and filed a "Verified Claim to Property" on movant's behalf. In the Verified Claim to Property, which movant signed under oath, movant asserted that he was the owner of the money and jewelry seized at 11128 Bon Jour Court and 7301 Sieloff Drive. Mr. Sison also filed and answer in the civil forfeiture case.
On August 28, 2008, the grand jury returned a superceding indictment, which added no new charges against movant. Movant pleaded not guilty to the superceding indictment. Movant filed a Motion to Suppress Statements and a Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence. On October 14, 2008, Magistrate Judge Fleissig held an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Sison represented movant at the evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, the government presented the testimony agent Task Force Officer Jason Staats. Defendant presented the testimony of James Hayes, a forensic document examiner, who testified regarding the signature on the consent to search form, and of attorney Rosenblum. In rebuttal, the government presented the testimony of Special Agent Lonnie Parrish.
On November 12, 2008, Magistrate Judge Fleissig issued a Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that movant's pretrial motions be denied. On December 8, 2008, movant filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The undersigned carefully reviewed the objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation on December 17, 2008. The Court overruled the objections and denied movant's motion to suppress statements and physical evidence.
On November 20, 2008, attorneys Rosenblum and Sison moved to withdraw as counsel for movant. As grounds for withdrawal, they stated that movant had informed counsel that he wished to advance a defense at trial that would make them necessary witnesses. Moreover, said counsel stated that "[movant] has steadfastly refused to take the undersigned's counsel on a variety of matters. [Movant] has furthermore leveled certain allegations claiming that the undersigned undermined his case. As such, the undersigned believes that the attorney-client relationship has broken down and that Defendant will best be served by the entry of new counsel on his behalf."
Movant's counsel also filed a motion for psychiatric evaluation and continuance of the trial date. Movant's counsel represented in their motion that movant displayed a troubling lack of understanding during conference they had with him.
On February 10, 2009, movant's attorney filed a report from John S. Rabun, M.D., in which the doctor stated that movant declined to participate in a psychiatric evaluation. Movant later consented to an evaluation, and on February 24, 2009, movant's counsel filed a report in which Dr. Rabun opined that movant was not afflicted by a mental disease or defect. He found that movant had the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense. On February 27, 2009, following a hearing at which movant and his counsel were present, Magistrate Judge Fleissig found movant competent to stand trial.
On March 17, 2009, the undersigned held a closed hearing on attorneys Rosenblum and Sison's motion to withdraw as counsel. Movant was present at the hearing. After considering the statements by counsel and movant, the Court denied the motion to withdraw as counsel.
On March 23, 2009, the government filed a motion for inquiry into a potentital conflict of interest as to attorneys Rosenblum and Sison. The government requested that the Court conduct an inquiry as to whether Mr. Rosenblum or Gilbert Sison had a conflict of interest that would preclude them from raising the defense that movant never made admissions to the law enforcement officers. Defense counsel responded to the motion indicating that they had similar concerns. On April 7, 2009, the Court held a hearing on the matter. The Court granted attorneys Rosenblum and Sison leave to withdraw. Attorney Susan Roach entered an appearance on movant's behalf in both the criminal and civil forfeiture cases on April 6, 2009, which was two and half months before trial.
On June 16, 2009, the government filed a Criminal Information alleging that movant had two prior Missouri state convictions: (1) a 1989 conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance; and (2) a 1993 conviction for Sale of Controlled Substance.
The trial by jury began on June 29, 2009. At trial the government presented eleven witnesses including: two alleged co-conspirators, Tracy Shelton and Clayton Moore; two lab chemists, Anthony Harris and Charlotte Corbett; three case agents, John Christiansen, Jason Staat, and Parrish; and four supporting agents, Scott Marlow, Leo Rice, Jessie Durer, and James Stroop. Movant presented the testimony of three witnesses: Albert Winston, Marcia Freeman-Carter, and Sherondia Elliot. Movant did not testify. The handwriting expert also did not testify.
Mr. Shelton testified, without objection, that he was selling 25 pounds marijuana with movant in 2003. Trial Transcript, Vol. II at 8-9. Mr. Shelton further testified that the marijuana business "didn't do good," and so they started selling cocaine in the early part of 2007.
Clayton Moore testified that back when he was 19 or 20 years old he obtained powdered cocaine from movant. Trial Transcript, Vol. III at 9. Attorney Roach objected "as to relevance" to this line of questioning, an objection which the Court sustained.
Agent Staat testified at trial, without objection, that after movant's arrest movant was read his
Agent Parrish testified at trial that at the division office he read movant his rights from a
The government sought to introduce Exhibit 33, a copy of the Verified Claim to Property signed by movant. Attorney Roach objected stating, "Well, I guess the first basis is that they were to provide a list of exhibits which they were going to use in their case. This wasn't on the exhibit list, No. 1. And No. 2, it's —"
The government also sought to introduce evidence of movant's prior 1993 sale conviction under Rule 404(b).
After the government rested, movant called Albert Winston and Marcia Freeman-Carter to testify about movant's property renovations business and their real estate dealings with movant.
After Ms. Elliot's testimony, attorney Roach requested a recess to "consult with my client overnight" due to the admission of the Verified Claim to Property.
After a four-day trial, movant was found guilty as to Counts I and II of the indictment. Movant's counsel filed a Motion for Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 29(C) and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which the Court denied.
Following trial, the Court prepared to initiate the criminal forfeiture proceedings before the jury. Movant, however, waived those proceedings.
Movant appeared before the undersigned for sentencing on September 22, 2009. The Court sentenced movant to a term of imprisonment of life, the mandatory minimum, on Counts I and II, all terms to be served concurrently.
Counsel filed a timely notice of appeal, which was submitted to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney Richard Sindel entered his appearance replacing Ms. Roach as movant's counsel. On July 30, 2010, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court based on the record of the district court and the parties' briefs.
Movant filed a petition for hearing en banc and a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, both of which were denied on April 25, 2011.
In the § 2255 motion presently before the Court, movant asserts seven grounds for relief:
Two. Attorneys Roach and Sison testified at the hearing. Movant did not take the stand to testify.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a defendant may seek relief on grounds that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or law of the United States, that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, that the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law, or that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To warrant relief under § 2255, the errors of which movant complains must amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
In each of his seven grounds for relief, movant has claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, movant must show that his counsel's performance was deficient, and that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance.
In Ground One movant argues his counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to advise movant to plead guilty to a sentence less than life. On November 6, 2015, movant filed a document with the Court stating that he was waiving this claim. Ground One is, therefore, moot.
In Ground Two movant asserts that his counsel, Mr. Sison, rendered ineffective assistance in drafting and advising movant to execute in the civil forfeiture case a "Verified Claim to Property in Forfeiture Complaint," wherein movant signed under penalty of perjury that he was the owner of the seized currency and jewelry. In his Motion to Vacate movant argues that filing a claim to the property in the civil forfeiture action was a mistake amounting to ineffective assistance of counsel because ownership of the money became an issue at trial and the Verified Claim to Property was used as evidence against him.
According to movant, large amounts of cash is often indicative of a drug operation, and movant's ability to deny ownership of the cash was hindered by the Verified Claim to Property. At trial movant's counsel, Ms. Roach, attempted to present an alterative explanation for the large amounts of cash. She highlighted that the Bon Jour house was a property movant was remodeling, and others had access to the residence. She also argued that a number of people had access to the closet at Sieloff. This theory, that the money belonged to someone else, however, was undermined by the Verified Claim to Property, which was used against movant as evidence that he had previously claimed ownership to the cash. In his Motion to Vacate and memorandum in support, movant argues it was constitutionally defective representation for his attorney to have allowed him sign the Verified Claim to Property because it was used as evidence against him at trial, and it was foreseeable that the evidence would be used against him.
Federal agents seized the cash at the Bon Jour house and the Sieloff apartment as money used in drug transactions. Under federal law money used in drug trafficking is subject to forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). "In a forfeiture proceeding, the government bears the initial burden of proving probable cause to connect the property involved in the forfeiture proceeding to some form of criminal wrongdoing."
Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions sets the procedures governing in rem forfeiture actions in federal court, including forfeitures of money used in drug trafficking. Supplemental Rule G(l) ("This rule governs a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute.").
In filing a verification or answer in a civil forfeiture, a claimant may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. The decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, however, does not decrease a claimant's burden of establishing a claim, and the government may move to strike the claim and for the entry of default judgment.
According to movant's attorney Gilbert Sison, who testified at the evidentiary hearing, the parties were in the middle of plea negotiations at the time the civil forfeiture action was filed. Mr. Sison testified that movant insisted that they assert a claim to the money that was subject to forfeiture in order to preserve movant's claim to the money. Doc. 31, Hearing Trans., p. 38, 43-4. Mr. Sison testified that movant informed him that the money legitimately belonged to movant.
At the evidentiary hearing, attorney Susan Roach testified that when she took over as movant's defense counsel two months before trial, it was her opinion that the Verified Claim to Property presented a large obstacle for the defense. Doc. 31 at 5. In an affidavit attached to the government's response, Ms. Roach attests that she spoke with movant on a number occasions about the verification, and movant continued to insist that much of the money was legitimate. Doc. 13, Ex.3 at 4.
Movant did not testify at the evidentiary hearing. He did attached to his traverse an affidavit in which he states that he did not direct Mr. Sison or Mr. Rosenblum to draft or file the Verified Claim to Property, but rather Mr. Sison suggested he sign the verification "so that the property could be used as part of the plea negotiations." Doc. 18, Ex. 1. Movant also attests that Ms. Roach "did not discuss the Asset Forfeiture Affidavit with me at any time."
Movant carries the burden of establishing the factual basis for his claim for relief, and the Court does not find movant's affidavit to be credible. Movant's affidavit directly contradicts the live testimony and affidavits of Mr. Sison and Ms. Roach. Mr. Sison and Ms. Roach both provided the Court with details regarding the context and content of their conversations with movant. Furthermore, their testimony was consistent with their actions during the pretrial proceedings and trial. What is more, Mr. Sison and Ms. Roach are both officers of the Court and thereby have more motivation to be truthful. The Court finds it more likely than not that movant told Mr. Sison that the money subject to forfeiture was his; that the source of the money was legitimate, which Mr. Sison believed; and he wanted to assert a claim to the money and personal property. Had Mr. Sison not filed the Verified Claim to Proper and answer, he would have gone against movant's express wishes, and his client would have forever lost his right to assert a claim to the money and property.
The Court finds that movant's counsel performance with regard to the forfeiture verification was not "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance."
In Ground Three movant argues that his counsel was ineffective when he failed to move to suppress statements that movant made on March 10, 2008, on the grounds that movant was not timely presented to a neutral magistrate to determine probable cause for his arrest. Movant argues that had the issue been raised, his statements would have been suppressed and the results of the trial would have been different.
The Fourth Amendment requires "a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to an extended restraint on liberty following an arrest without a warrant."
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and federal statute specifically address the proper time frame for presentment for persons arrested on a federal charge. Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "a person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge . . ." Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(A). Under the judicial doctrine commonly known as the
Movant argues that he is entitled to relief because his counsel failed to move to suppress inculpatory statements he made following his arrest on March 10, 2008, on the grounds that he was not timely presented to a neutral magistrate. Movant, however, has not adequately shown that any such motion would have been granted. In his memorandum in support of his Motion to Vacate, movant asserts that following his arrest he was detained for "over two hours," but he provides no evidence as to how long he was in custody. Movant asserts that he made numerous inculpatory statements while in custody that were used against him at trial, including general statements as to how his cocaine business worked and that he had given Mr. Shelton 10 kilograms of cocaine, but he does not specifically state when these statements were made following his arrest. Doc. 2 at 17-8.
Movant bears the burden of demonstrating that his counsel's performance was constitutionally defective, and movant has not provided the Court with sufficient information to evaluate his claim.
What is more, movant is mistaken as to the applicable law. Without referring to 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c), he argues that "[e]ven two hours of detention can constitute an extended restraint on liberty" and, therefore, his statements would have been excluded. Doc. 18 at 6 (citing to
Finally, movant does not explain how the suppression of any such statements would have changed the outcome of the trial. In his Motion to Vacate and supporting memoranda, movant summarily states a number of times that the outcome of the trial would have been different had his inculpatory statements not been used against him, but he provides absolutely no analysis in support of this assertion.
Based on the record before it, the Court finds that movant has not demonstrated that his counsel was constitutionally defective for failing to move to suppress evidence based on the argument that movant was not promptly presented to a neutral magistrate.
In Ground Four, movant faults his trial counsel for failing to review all the applicable discovery in the case. Movant also asserts that his counsel was unprepared to go to trial. In support of Ground Four, movant points to a number of statements his counsel made at trial, and the fact that she filed three motions to continue the trial date.
In opposition to movant's Motion to Vacate, the government filed a response opposition, to which it attached Ms. Roach's affidavit. In the affidavit, Ms. Roach attests to the following with regard to her trial preparation:
Doc. 13, Ex. 3 at 3.
The trial in this case last lasted four days, and movant has cherry-picked five moments from the trial transcript, which he contends demonstrate that attorney Roach was unprepared for trial:
Movant merely points to these instances when Ms. Roach states that she had not reviewed a tape, or that she was surprised by the elicited testimony, but movant does not connect the dots and explain what Ms. Roach should have done differently, or how being more prepared in these instances would have changed the outcome of the trial. The Court has carefully reviewed the trial transcripts and finds these five instances do not establish that Ms. Roach performance was constitutionally deficient or that movant was prejudiced as a result.
For example, movant asserts that his counsel was ineffective because she did not remember that there was evidence of money counting on recording that was made at Mr. Moore's residence. Ms. Roach objected to the recording on relevance, but her objection was overruled. Movant does nothing to explain how this minor lapse in memory hindered his defense, as the tape would have been admitted in any event.
As for the second example movant gives, the Court has carefully reviewed the transcript and believes Ms. Roach merely misspoke. During Mr. Shelton's cross-examination, Ms. Roach was attempting to make the point that Mr. Shelton was never wearing a wire during an actual transfer of drugs. "So basically what we have for this jury is no occasion where you were wearing a wire and you contend that drugs were transferred from [movant] to you, correct?" Trial Transcript, Vol. II at 42. It is evident from this statements and the trial transcript that Ms. Roach saw the recordings — they were played in the courtroom. In the Court's view, Ms. Roach intended to say, "Well, I haven't seen any [
With regard to movant's third and forth examples, these are statements Ms. Roach made during a sidebar conference that took place during Mr. Shelton's testimony. Ms. Roach was making the point that she had not seen the statements to which Mr. Shelton was testifying, and she moved that the government produce any such statements. The government responded that it had not produced the statements to the defense. The government's attorney elaborated that under Rule 26, it did not have a duty to do so, because Mr. Shelton's statements regarding movant's threat and counterfeiting were not made to law enforcement. Trial Transcript, Vol. II at 53-5. Movant's third and forth examples are not evidence that Ms. Roach did not review discovery or that she was unprepared for trial. She did not have the statements because they were not given to her by the government.
Finally, movant faults Ms. Roach for stating that she had not seen an expert report from agent Stroop. However, there is no evidence in the record that there ever was such a report, which was exactly Ms. Roach's point. She objected to agent Stroop giving opinion testimony because he had never been designated as an expert, and she had never received an expert report from him. The Court overruled Ms. Roach's objection, but it was not entirely without basis, as agent Stroop was about to offer his opinion about the financial records.
In sum, none of the examples movant gives from the transcript establish that Ms. Roach "failed to exercise reasonable diligence and skill" at trial, or that movant was prejudiced thereby.
In addition, movant's five examples do not impeach or undermine Ms. Roach's affidavit. Ms. Roach never stated that she reviewed all the documents in this case, and it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for her not to have done so. Ms. Roach states in her affidavit that she assigned the task of reviewing the additional discovery the government provided to her associate, and her associate gave her a summary. Ms. Roach then reviewed some of the evidence with movant. Attorneys often rely on colleagues and associates, and movant has cited no authority for the supposition that it is constitutionally deficient performance to delegate some tasks to an associate. But even if the Court were to assume that Ms. Roach's conduct with regard to the discovery was insufficient, movant has not shown how the outcome of the trial could have been different had she been familiar with each and every document in the case.
In support of his contention that Ms. Roach did not review all the discovery in this case, movant also points to three motions to continue the trial. In one motion, filed May 28, 2009, Ms. Roach stated that she "only recently made arrangements with defense counsel Rosenblum for receipt of notes pertinent to Defendant's case (but is not yet in receipt thereof)" and that she had "not yet completed review of tapes and transcripts
In his memorandum in support, movant further faults his counsel in Ground Four for not being prepared to object to Exhibit 33, the Verified Claim to Property. Movant contents that "[Ms.] Roach should have been aware of Exhibit 33 and failed to make any pre-trial objections to the evidence, including that it was signed based on the erroneous and ineffective advice of counsel." Doc. 3 at 21. Ms. Roach was very much aware of the verification, and she believed that it was very damaging to movant's case. She attempted to have the exhibit excluded at trial on the grounds that it was not disclosed on the government's exhibit list. But the Court overruled Ms. Roach's objection, finding that movant was aware of the exhibit because he himself had signed it. Ms. Roach further objected to the admission of the exhibit arguing that movant had detrimentally relied on the erroneous advice of counsel when he signing the verification. Trial Transcript, Vol. III at 108-109. Again, her objection was overruled. Movant faults Ms. Roach for failing to make any pre-trial objections to the evidence. But even if Ms. Roach had made a pretrial object, there is no indication that any such motion would have been granted. Movant has not explained why a pretrial motion would have been any more successful than the objections Ms. Roach made at trial.
In his memorandum in support, movant also faults Ms. Roach's trial performance because "Roach elicited[ ]comment on [movant]'s right not to testify, and failed to have it stricken or request a mistrial." Doc. 3 at 19. Movant gives two examples of this from the trial transcript. During the cross examination of Agent Staat regarding the Miranda waiver, the following colloquy occurred:
Trial Transcript, Vol. II at 136.
Later, the following exchange took place:
Trial Transcript, Vol. II at 141.
Even if one were to characterize this testimony as comments about movant's "right not to testify," the comments were obscure and hardly pivotal in all the evidence that was presented at trial. Had Ms. Roach asked for a mistrial based on this testimony it would have been denied.
Movant cannot show that Ms. Roach's performance was deficient in preparing for trial, or that the outcome of the trial would have been different has she been better prepared. Movant is not entitled to flawless legal representation, but rather reasonably effective assistance "under prevailing professional norms."
In Ground Five movant contends that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to plead, litigate, and preserve movant's meritorious motions to suppress evidence, including issues related to his lack of consent to the search of the Sieloff residence, the improper use of GPS monitoring, and failure to present him to a magistrate to determine probable cause of his arrest. Movant raises no meritorious claim for relief in Ground Five.
In his pre-trial motion to suppress, Mr. Sison made the argument that movant did not consent to the search at the Sieloff residence, and he did not sign the consent to search form. At the evidentiary hearing, movant's counsel presented the testimony of James Hayes, a forensic document examiner, who testified regarding the signature on the consent to search form. Mr. Hayes's opinion was inconclusive. He testified that after comparing the signature on the consent to search form with 47 exemplars of the movant's signature, which were provide by the defense, it was his conclusion that the author of the exemplars could neither be identified or eliminated as the author of the signature on the consent form. In his Motion to Vacate, movant faults his attorney, Mr. Sison, for failing to lay a proper foundation for the exemplars. Movant argues that had his attorney laid the proper foundation, the decision of the Magistrate Judge would have been different, and she would have recommended that the evidence seized from Sieloff be suppressed. The Court does not agree.
In Judge Fleissig's Report and Recommendation it is true that she faults movant's counsel for not laying the proper foundation for the exemplars. She wrote, "[o]ther than the signatures contained on defendant's bond, which was presumably signed in open court, no foundation, whatsoever, was laid for the exemplars Mr. Hayes used for compar[ing the consent to search form]."
Movant's argument that Ms. Roach was ineffective for failing to call Mr. Hayes as a witness at trial or "another document examiner" is also without merit. Mr. Hayes could neither conclude that movant signed the consent to search, nor could he exclude movant as the signer of the document. Calling Mr. Hayes, whose opinion was inconclusive, to testify at trial would not have aided movant's defense. Furthermore, in her affidavit Mr. Roach states that she did not call Mr. Hayes to testify because movant had told her that he may have signed the form, and she was also concerned that Mr. Hayes would be asked about the authenticity of the signature on the forfeiture affidavit. Therefore, the decision not to call Mr. Hayes as a witness was a matter of "trial strategy," which is "virtually unchallengeable."
In February 2008, federal agents planted a "homing device" or GPS monitor on movant's truck without a warrant. Placement of a GPS monitor on a vehicle without a warrant constitutes an improper search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Movant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because he faults his counsel for failing to raise an objection based on a Supreme Court case that had not yet been decided. Movant claims his counsel was ineffective for not objecting under
Movant also argues in Ground Five that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence law enforcement obtained following movant's arrest, on the grounds that movant was not timely presented to a neutral magistrate to determine probable cause. There is nothing to indicate that any such motion would have been granted. For the reasons stated above in Ground Three, movant's claim is without merit.
In Ground Six, movant contends his counsel, Ms. Roach, rendered ineffective assistance in failing to adequately litigate the exclusion of improper character evidence at trial, including evidence concerning movant's previous conviction for sale of controlled substance and an agent's testimony concerning movant's "attitude" and knowledge of "the way the system works." The Court has reviewed these claims and finds they are without merit.
Approximately two weeks before trial, the government file its notice of intent to offer evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The notice stated that the government intended to offer evidence of movant's prior drug convictions to prove movant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake in voluntarily joining the charged conspiracy. At trial, the government elected only to submit evidence of one of movant's prior convictions from 1993. Ms. Roach objected and argued the evidence should be excluded, as it was "remote in time and not properly within the purview of 404(b)." Trial Transcript, Vol. III at 111. The undersigned overruled the objection.
At trial Tracy Shelton testified that he started selling marijuana with movant in 2003, at least three years prior to the time charged in the indictment. Mr. Shelton further testified that the marijuana business did not do well, and that he and movant began selling cocaine in 2007. Movant's attorney did not object to this testimony. Clayton Moore also testified that sometime in 2007 he was aware that Mr. Shelton and movant were selling marijuana. Ms. Roach objected as to the foundation of this questioning, which was sustained. The Court limited the testimony to personal knowledge. Mr. Moore then testified that sometime in 2007, Mr. Shelton came to him and told him that he and movant were now dealing in cocaine. Mr. Moore also testified that he had known movant since sixth grade and that as a "youngster" he would get "small, very small quantities" of powered cocaine from movant. Ms. Roach objected to the relevance of this, and the Court sustained the objection.
In his Motion to Vacate movant faults his trial counsel for not objecting to evidence of prior drug dealings. He argues that she should have objected on the grounds that the evidence was improper character evidence that was more prejudicial than probative.
First, movant cannot show that had his counsel moved to exclude evidence of movant's prior dealing, especially those more recent in time, any such motion would have been granted. The Eighth Circuit has held that evidence of other drug transactions is relevant.
Second, movant cannot establish prejudice. As the Eighth Circuit has stated, the evidence against movant was "considerable."
Finally, in Ground Four movant faults his attorney for not objecting to what he has characterized as improper comments on his character by a DEA agent. Movant argues these comments were in violation of Rule 404(b), and his counsel should have moved to have them stricken, requested that the Court instruct the jury to disregard the comments, or moved for a mistrial.
During the cross-examination of Agent Parrish, the following exchange occurred relative to the use of a
Movant asserts that the statements that he was "clever," had an "attitude," and "knows the way the system works" were improper remarks on his character and should not have been admissible under Rule 404(b). Movant faults his attorney for not objecting to these statements.
First, it may have been a strategic decision not to object to these remarks. The remarks were vague, made in passing, and Ms. Roach may not have wanted to draw attention to them.
Movant supposes that had his counsel objected, the Court would have stricken the testimony, instructed the jury to disregard the statements, or declared a mistrial. First and foremost, the Court would not have declared a mistrial. "Exposure of a jury to improper testimony ordinarily is cured by measures less drastic than a mistrial, such as an instruction to the jury to disregard the testimony."
In his final ground for relief, movant argues notwithstanding the deficiencies of each ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that taken cumulatively his counsel's errors amount to constitutionally defective assistance of counsel. The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly rejected the cumulative error theory of post-conviction relief, and the Court is bound by that precedent.
For all the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Stephen Henderson is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Court finds that all the claims in movant's Motion to Vacate fail on the merits.
Accordingly,
An appropriate judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
