United States v. Goodmoney

636 F.Supp.3d 1313

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Dominic GOODMONEY, Defendant.

No. 21-CR-00592-DHU

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Filed October 21, 2022

Louis C. Mattei, DOJ-USAO, Albuquerque, NM, Nicholas Scott Mote, Thomas A. Outler, U.S. Attorney's Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.

Amanda R. Lavin, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID HERRERA URIAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Dominic Goodmoney's Motion to Dismiss Indictment with Prejudice for Violations of Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Right and the Speedy Trial Act. Doc. 22. The Government responded (Doc. 23), and Defendant replied (Doc. 26). Defendant filed a notice of supplemental authority (Doc. 27), as did the Government (Doc. 31). Having carefully considered the briefs, exhibits, and relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, the Court concludes that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On August 11, 2019, Defendant was arrested by Albuquerque Police Department (APD) officers and booked into the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) for the criminal offenses of driving on a revoked license, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and felon in possession of a firearm. See Def.'s Ex. A, Doc. 22-1 at 2.

On August 27, 2019, Defendant was indicted on the state level for the offenses of felon in possession of a firearm and failure to provide evidence of vehicle registration in case number D-202-CR-2019-02718. See Def.'s Ex. C, Doc. 22-3.

On April 23, 2021, Defendant was federally charged by indictment with Felon in Possession of Firearm and Ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. See Doc. 2. On the same day, a federal arrest warrant for Defendant was issued. See Doc. 7.

On October 7, 2021, Defendant was arrested and booked at MDC for new state charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal damage to property. See Def.'s Ex. F., Doc. 22-6. The new arrest violated Defendant's conditions of release in the state felon in possession case (ending in -2718). See Gov.'s Ex. 1, Doc. 23-1. The new arrest also violated Defendant's conditions of release in a pending state domestic violence prosecution, case number T-4-DV-2020004002. See Gov.'s Ex. 5. Doc. 23-5.

On October 8, 2021, Defendant was remanded into state custody at MDC for violating his conditions of pretrial supervision in the state felon in possession case. See Def.'s Ex. E, Doc. 22-5.

On October 12, 2021, in the state domestic violence case, a state judge ordered Defendant released on his own recognizance. See Gov.'s Ex. 8, 23-8 at 2; see also Def.'s Ex. J, Doc. 22-10.

On October 14, 2021, ATF Special Agent (SA) Amber Pace sent MDC a copy of the federal indictment and arrest warrant, and MDC indicated they would let SA Pace know when the Defendant was ready to be transferred to federal custody. See Gov.'s Resp., Doc. 23 at 3; see also Gov.'s Ex. 6, Doc. 23-6.

On October 19, 2021, in the state felon in possession case, a state judge ordered Defendant released to the third-party custody of Pretrial Services. See Def.'s Ex. I, Doc. 22-9.

On October 28, 2021, in the state domestic violence case, the state court set a $100 cash bond at the request of defense counsel.¹ See Gov.'s Ex. 7, Doc. 23-7.

On November 5, 2021, in the aggravated assault case, Defendant was ordered released from custody on his own recognizance. See Def.'s Ex. G, Doc. 22-7; see also Def.'s Ex. J, Doc. 22-10.

On January 3 and 4, 2022, SA Pace emailed MDC and asked whether the federal detainer was active. See Gov.'s Ex. 9, Doc. 23-9 at 2. The MDC staff person responded, "yes ma'am, we do have him held on a federal detainer. As soon as his locals have been released I'll let you know." Id.

On January 21, 2022, Defendant was sentenced in his state domestic violence case; he was sentenced to 88 days, the time he already served in custody. See Gov.'s Ex. 10. The domestic violence case was closed. Id.

On February 18, 2022, the State of New Mexico entered a Nolle Prosequi of the state charges in the -2718 state case, dismissing the case without prejudice because "the State provides that it is deferring to Federal prosecution of this matter." Def.'s Ex. M, Doc. 22-13.

On February 24, 2022, Defendant was arrested in the federal case and transferred into federal custody. See Doc. 7; see also Gov.'s Ex. 12, Doc. 23-12. On February 25, 2022, Defendant had his Initial Appearance in federal court regarding the indictment in this matter. See Doc. 9. Defendant was ordered detained pending trial. See Doc. 10; see also Doc. 18.

On April 13, 2022, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to continue trial, see Doc. 20, which the Court granted. See Doc. 21. On May 10, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. See Doc. 22. On June 6, 2022, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to continue trial, see Doc. 24, which the Court granted. See Doc. 25. On August 31, 2022, Defendant filed an additional unopposed motion to continue trial, see Doc. 29, and again, the Court granted a continuance. See Doc. 30.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Defendant argues dismissal is warranted because the Government violated the Speedy Trial Act and his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. See Doc. 22. The Government argues Defendant has failed to show a violation of either the Speedy Trial Act or his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. See Doc. 23.

I. Speedy Trial Act

"The Speedy Trial Act is designed to protect a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial and serve the public interest in bringing prompt criminal proceedings." United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir. 2008)). The Speedy Trial Act ("the Act") "requires that a criminal trial commence within seventy days of the filing of the indictment or information or the defendant's appearance, whichever occurs last." Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1)). The Act provides that certain periods of time are excludable from the seventy-day period. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).

Defendant argues that, under the Act, he was entitled to notice of the federal charges against him at the time the federal detainer was placed on him while detained at MDC. See Doc. 22 at 5. Specifically, Defendant argues the Government violated the notice provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(j)(1), which states: "If the attorney for the Government knows that a person charged with an offense is serving a term of imprisonment in any penal institution he shall promptly - (A) undertake to obtain the prisoner for trial; or (B) cause a detainer to be filed with the person having custody of the prisoner and request him to so advise the prisoner and to advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(j)(1). Defendant asserts that he submitted a public records request to MDC, and MDC responded that it had no record of service of the federal indictment upon Defendant. See Doc. 22 at 6. Defendant notes that the Act does not mandate dismissal of an indictment for a violation of the notice requirement, but argues nonetheless that there must be a remedy to ensure the Government adheres to the notice provision. Id. Defendant argues the Government's violation of the Act deprived him of the opportunity to demand a speedy trial. Id. at 7.

The Government argues Defendant has not shown a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, but even if he had, the appropriate remedy would be a dismissal without prejudice. See Doc. 23 at 7-10. The Government argues Defendant has not shown a violation because the "total amount of non-excluded Speedy Trial Act time is less than 70 days." Doc. 23 at 8. The Government's analysis focuses primarily on when the Speedy Trial Act's clock was triggered, so that it can calculate the total amount of non-excluded time. Id. at 8-10.

Strikingly, Defendant acknowledges that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act does not provide for the remedy of dismissal of an indictment. See Doc. 22 at 7; see also United States v. Torres-Centeno, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000) ("every circuit that has addressed this issue has held that dismissal is not an available remedy for a violation of § 3161(j)(1)"). Yet Defendant's sole request for relief is for the Court to "dismiss this indictment with prejudice." Doc. 22 at 16. See also Doc. 26 at 4. Though Defendant refers to United States v. Tanner, 941 F.2d 574 (7th Cir. 1991), for the finding that disciplinary sanctions against the government attorney are the remedy for a violation of § 3161(j)(1), Defendant does not request sanctions. See Doc. 22 at 6-7. Instead, Defendant argues that the Government's violation of the Act is "undoubtedly relevant to a constitutional speedy trial analysis," and its alleged violation "deprived Mr. Goodmoney of his opportunity to assert a fundamental constitutional right, and unequivocally caused a violation of that right." Id. at 7. Considering Defendant's position and request for relief, the Court need not reach the question of whether the notice provision of the Act was violated. Instead, the Court proceeds directly to the question of whether dismissal is warranted under the Sixth Amendment.

II. Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy . . . trial." U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The remedy for a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation is dismissal of the case. See United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262, 1274 (10th Cir. 2009). To determine whether a defendant has been deprived of right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, the Court considers four factors: (1) the length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). "None of...