Stokes v. United States

DEQUAN STOKES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Criminal No. ELH-18-0316

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

April 29, 2021

Related Civil No.: ELH-19-2493

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this post-conviction matter, Petitioner Dequan Stokes, who is self-represented, has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). ECF 42 (the "Petition"). The convictions followed Stokes's entry of a guilty plea to both offenses, pursuant to a Plea Agreement (ECF 26).

Stokes asserts that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. He complains, inter alia, that his attorney, an Assistant Federal Public Defender ("AFPD"), failed to pursue a motion to suppress evidence recovered from a warrantless search of his vehicle, and failed to seek suppression of custodial statements that he made to investigating officers, obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Further, Stokes alleges that, even if he had been unsuccessful in regard to the suppression motions, his lawyer could have negotiated a conditional plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), to preserve his appellate rights. ECF 42 at 11. And, he contends that his attorney failed to recognize and discuss with him his actual innocence as to the charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was derelict for failing to advise him to proceed to trial, rather than plead guilty.

The government vigorously opposes the Petition (ECF 70). It has also submitted several exhibits.

In addition, Stokes has filed several other motions. These include a "Motion To Compel Counsel To Produce Client File" (ECF 55); a "Motion To Order the Government To Produce" (ECF 61); and a "Motion For Discovery And Leave For Extension of Time" (ECF 74). The government's opposition to Stokes's discovery request is docketed at ECF 76. Stokes has replied. ECF 79.

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Petition or the motions. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Petition and the motions.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A.

Four members of the Baltimore City Police Department were on patrol in an unmarked car at about 10:00 p.m. on March 10, 2018, in the Hampden neighborhood of Baltimore City. ECF 26 at 11. Hampden is a trendy area populated with stores, bars, restaurants, and patrons. Id. The officers saw Stokes in the driver's seat of a Dodge SUV, which had a Georgia license plate, parked on West 36th Street, known as "The Avenue." Id. They then saw Stokes exit the vehicle and run into a restaurant, Holy Frijoles. Id. The officers became suspicious, parked their car, and looked into the SUV. There, they saw, in plain view on the driver's seat, a plastic vial containing a white, "rock-like substance." Id. Stokes was eventually located at Frazier's Bar, a restaurant across the street from Holy Frijoles. He was arrested and taken back to the SUV. Id.

The police asked Stokes for the key to the SUV, but Stokes denied that he had it. Id. Instead, he claimed he had given the key to "S.M." Id. at 12. The police subsequently located S.M. at Frazier's Bar and he produced the key to the SUV. Id.

Thereafter, the police searched the vehicle driven by defendant. The search led to the recovery from the center console of a black Hi-Point JCP .40 caliber handgun with 10 live rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Id. In addition, over sixty vials of cocaine were recovered from the vehicle, weighing about 6.2 grams. Id. A search of defendant led to the recovery of $357. Id. The items recovered during the searches are depicted in ECF 70-7.

Stokes was indicted on June 7, 2018. ECF 1. A superseding indictment was filed on July 12, 2018. ECF 4. In particular, Stokes was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count One); possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Two); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count Three).

On September 14, 2018, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress statements (ECF 21) and a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of the vehicle. ECF 22. Those motions were never adjudicated, however. Instead, on November 21, 2018, pursuant to a Plea Agreement (ECF 26), Stokes entered a plea of guilty to Counts Two and Three of the Superseding Indictment. ECF 29. His plea was entered under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), calling for a total period of incarceration ranging from at least 84 months but not more than 120 months. Id. ¶ 9.

The Plea Agreement also included a stipulation of facts, from which the factual summary set forth above is derived. See ECF 26 at 11-13. In the factual summary, Stokes admitted that he possessed the cocaine with the intent to distribute, and that he possessed the firearm in relation to the drug trafficking charge set forth in Count Two. Id. at 12-13.

The rearraignment transcript is docketed at ECF 64. The government included an excerpt at ECF 70-3. The plea colloquy reflects that the defendant was sworn (id. at 2), and he was alsoadvised of the significance of the oath. ECF 64 at 4.¹ In response to the Court's inquiry, the defendant indicated that he had discussed his case fully with his lawyer, including any defenses he might have, as well as his right to appeal if convicted at a trial. Id. at 5-6. Moreover, he was satisfied with counsel's representation. Id. at 6.

The Court also reviewed the terms of the Plea Agreement with Stokes, at length, and thoroughly advised Stokes of his rights and the waiver of them. This included the right to present defenses to the charges. Id. at 28. Notably, defendant was advised that, by pleading guilty, he waived all defenses to the charges. Id. at 29. He indicated that he understood. Id.

In addition, the Court established with Stokes that he agreed with the Statement of Facts in the Plea Agreement. Id. at 14. And, after the government presented the factual summary (id. at 33-34), the defendant agreed that the factual summary was accurate. Id. at 35.

Perhaps presciently, after the Court reviewed the defendant's rights with him, the Court said, id. at 30-31:

THE COURT: Every now and then, sir, somebody comes back and claims he or she didn't get it, they thought there would be some hearing on a very important defense or some ruling by the Court that would go their way and they didn't realize that wasn't happening. So I always like to pause just about now to go over it one more time. Without reference to any of the particulars of your case, I'll just make up some examples to illustrate my point.

If you had a claim, sir, you were subjected to an illegal search or unlawful wiretap or were unlawfully interrogated, whatever or how many claims you might have, your lawyer could file as many motions as you and she thought proper, challenging whatever it is about the case that you disagreed with. Do you understand?

DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: The Court would hold a hearing and if the Court agreed with you, it means the evidence would not come in at the trial. If the Court disagreed with you, most likely the evidence would be admissible at the trial, but then if you went to trial and were convicted, you could challenge in an appeal the trial judge's rulings with which you disagree, whether it was in regard to those motions or any other matters in the life of the case. Do you understand?

DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: None of that's happing here because you're pleading guilty. Do you understand?

DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

The U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Report (ECF 30) and an Amended Presentence Report. ECF 41 ("PSR"). Defendant was 32 years old at the time of sentencing. He had neither a high school diploma nor his GED. Id. at 3.

For Count Two, Stokes had a final offense level of 29. ECF 41, ¶ 26. Count Three required a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 60 months, consecutive, with a maximum of life imprisonment. See ECF 26, ¶ 3. According to the PSR, Stokes had four prior felony drug convictions. ECF 41, ¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 42. Moreover, he qualified as a Career Offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Id. ¶ 44. Therefore, his Criminal History Category was VI. Id.²

Notably, Stokes had a combined sentencing Guidelines range of 262 months to 327 months (21 years, 10 months to 27 years, 3 months). ECF 41, ¶¶ 27-33, 93.³ Nevertheless, as noted, the government agreed to a plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (c)(1)(C), and stipulated to a joint recommendation ranging between 84 and 120 months of imprisonment. ECF 26, ¶ 9.

At sentencing on January 31, 2019 (ECF 37), the government sought a sentence of ten years' imprisonment. ECF 70 at 10. Defense counsel submitted a powerful sentencing memorandum (ECF 35) and requested an 84-month sentence.

The Court was persuaded by defense counsel, and imposed a term of imprisonment of 24 months as to Count Two, and the mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months, consecutive, as to Count Three, for a total term of imprisonment of 84 months. See ECF 39. That sentence corresponded to the bottom of the C plea range. And, it was far below the Guidelines range.

No appeal was noted. However, about eight months after sentencing, on August 28, 2019, Stokes filed his Petition. ECF 42. By Order of August 29, 2019, I directed the government to respond within 60 days. ECF 43.

Additional facts are included in the Discussion, infra.

B.

On October 9, 2019, the government filed a motion to require the AFPD to respond to inquiries from the government with respect to Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, and to extend the time for the government's response to the Petition. ECF 48. The government included a proposed Order (ECF 48-2), along with documents filed collectively as one exhibit....