Carnegie v. United States

1

JUSTIN CARNEGIE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 20-4315 (MCA)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 31, 2023

OPINION

Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Court District Judge

This matter has been opened to the Court by Justin Carnegie's ("Carnegie" or "Petitioner") motion to vacate pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Motion"). For the reasons explained in this Opinion, the Court denies the Motion, the request for an evidentiary hearing, and a certificate of appealability.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 4, 2015, a criminal complaint was filed against Carnegie and others, charging them with a conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 846. (See Mag. 15-6593; Crim. No. 14-220.) On August 7, 2015, Carnegie was arrested, and the Court appointed attorney Rubin Sinins to represent him (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 22.) In early November 2015, Sinins recognized a potential conflict (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 84), and, on December 30, 2015, attorney Thomas F. Verrastro was appointed to represent Carnegie. (Crim. No. 14- 220; ECF 118.) Approximately one year later, on October 3, 2016, attorney Salvatore T. Alfano was appointed to represent Carnegie, and Verrastro's representation was terminated. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 206.) On November 22, 2016, John J. Roberts ("Roberts") of Arseneault & Fassett, LLP was appointed to represent Carnegie. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 217.)

Meanwhile, on November 2, 2016, a federal grand jury in Newark returned a Sixth Superseding Indictment, Criminal Number 14-220 ("Superseding Indictment"), against Carnegie and his co-conspirators. The Superseding Indictment (Crim. 14-220; ECF 207) charged Carnegie with:

• Count One: Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d);

• Count Thirteen: Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering - Conspiracy to Assault with Dangerous Weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(6);

• Count Fourteen: Conspiracy to Possess a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(o);

• Count Eighteen: Conspiracy to Distribute Crack-Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and

• Count Twenty: Conspiracy to Distribute Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

The crime charged in Count One exposed Carnegie to a potential life sentence, and the two drug counts (Count Eighteen and County Twenty) exposed Carnegie to statutory mandatory minimums often years that-at the Government's sole discretion-could be increased to twenty years or life. (See PSR at ¶ 178.)

On March 10, 2017, the Government filed an Enhanced Penalty Information, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a), charging that on or about September 19, 2011, Carnegie had been convicted in the New Jersey Superior Court of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, based upon a guilty plea, which is a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year under the laws of New Jersey. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 281-2.) This Enhanced Penalty Information increased the ten-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment Carnegie faced on each of the two drug counts to a mandatory minimum term of twenty years. (See id.; see also PSR at ¶ 178.)

On June 21, 2017, Carnegie entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), to all five counts of the Superseding Indictment. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 321.)

The Plea Agreement contained factual stipulations, including that Carnegie (1) was a member of the Grape Street Crips; (2) actively participated in a drug conspiracy with fellow gang members to traffic more than 280 grams of crack-cocaine and more than one kilogram of heroin; and (3) participated with fellow gang members in a retaliatory shooting against rival gang members on October 7, 2013. (Id.) As part of the plea agreement, the government also agreed not to bring any further charges against Carnegie for his role in a kidnapping plot and two separate murder plots. (Exhibit A, Plea Tr. Dated Jun. 27, 2017 to Answer at 8-9.) In the plea agreement, the government and Carnegie agreed that the appropriate sentence was 25 years' imprisonment (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 321). The stipulated sentence was well below the maximum potential sentence of life in prison that Camegie faced if he were convicted of all charges at trial.

On June 27, 2017, Carnegie entered his plea before this Court (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 319; see also Exhibit A.) At his plea hearing, Carnegie represented to the Court that he was fully satisfied with the representation and advice given to him by Roberts, that he was pleading guilty of his own free will, and that he understood the elements of the crimes to which he was pleading guilty, including that he knowingly had participated in each of the charged conspiracies; Carnegie also provided factual admissions concerning his role in each of the crimes. (See Exhibit A at 5, 11-12, 17-23.)

On July 8, 2018, in advance of his sentencing, Carnegie terminated attorney Roberts' representation and retained new counsel Isaac Wright, Jr. ("Wright"). (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 738.) On August 30, 2018, Carnegie moved to withdraw his guilty plea. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 817.) On October 4, 2018, this Court denied Carnegie's Motion. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 835.) As set forth in this Court's Order, Carnegie had represented at his plea hearing that he had been "fully satisfied with the representation and advice given to him by his attorney in the case," and that during his plea hearing, the Court had "engaged in a detailed colloquy with Defendant to ensure Defendant understood the charges against him, including the elements of the conspiracy chargesf.]" (Id. at 2.) This Court also found that Carnegie had failed to "credibly assert his factual innocence based on facts in the record." (Id. at 4.)

On December 4, 2018, this Court sentenced Carnegie, consistent with the parties' plea agreement, to a term of imprisonment of 300 months on Counts One, Eighteen, and Twenty, a term of 36 months' imprisonment on Count Thirteen, and a term of 240 months' imprisonment on Count Fourteen, all to be served concurrently. (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 855.) On December 13, 2018, Carnegie filed a notice of appeal (Crim. No. 14-220; ECF 868). On or about February 19, 2020, Carnegie moved to dismiss his appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), following consultation with counsel. (App. No. 18-3743 (3d Cir.); ECF 43-1 at ¶ 9.) Later that same day, the Third Circuit clerk dismissed the appeal, (App. No. 18-3743 (3d Cir.); ECF 44.)

On or about March 26, 2020, Carnegie filed the instant motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("motion") (Civ. 20-4315; ECF 1). Carnegie's § 2255 motion asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. In his motion, Carnegie alleges that both Roberts and Wright failed to contest the Enhanced Penalty Information filed against Carnegie pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851(a), and that Roberts failed to investigate the discovery material that was produced by the Government and review it with Carnegie, and also coerced Carnegie into pleading guilty. Carnegie also alleges generally that his "counsel" failed to argue there was insufficient evidence to support Carnegie's convictions on Counts 18 and 20 of the Superseding Indictment.

On December 28, 2020, the government filed its answer. (20-cv-4315, ECF No. 10.) On January 27, 2021, Carnegie filed a reply in further support of his§ 2255 motion. (20-cv-4315, ECF No. 11.)

On July 22, 2022, Carnegie filed on the criminal docket an additional letter in support of his § 2255 motion, in which he claimed that an "intervening change in law" rendered him "actually innocent" of one of the charges to which he pled guilty. (Crim No. 14-220, ECF No. 1046.). Carnegie contends that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022), renders him "actually innocent of Count #14 of [the] indictment" for Conspiracy to Use, Carry, or Possess a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, because "possession of a firearm as typically charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) with its predicate conduct or offense being a conspiracy or attempt crime is not a crime of violence." (Id., ECF No. 1046, at 1.) The government filed a response on February 2, 2023. (Civ. No. 20-4315, ECF No. 13.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 permits a court to vacate, correct, or set aside a sentence

upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack....

28 U.S.C. §2255.

A criminal defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to § 2255 relief. See United States v. Davies, 394 F.3d 182,189 (3d Cir. 2005). Moreover, as a § 2255 motion to vacate is a collateral attack on a sentence, a criminal defendant "must clear a significantly higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal." United States v. Traviliion, 759 F.3d 281, 288 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 166 (1982)). In considering a motion to vacate a defendant's sentence, "the court must accept the truth of the movant's factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record." United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542, 545 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The Court may dismiss the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing where the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Liu v United States, No. 11-4646, 2013 WL 4538293, at *9 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2013) (...