Charles Pollock, Jr. v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: January 24, 2018
• Docket: 17-1006
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION ToȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1ȱ ȱȱ

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuitȱ Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604ȱ ȱ SubmittedȱJanuaryȱ16,ȱ2018*ȱ DecidedȱJanuaryȱ24,ȱ2018ȱ ȱ Beforeȱ ȱ FRANKȱH.ȱEASTERBROOK,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱ ȱ ILANAȱDIAMONDȱROVNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge ȱ DAVIDȱF.ȱHAMILTON,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱ ȱ No.ȱ17Ȭ1006ȱ ȱ CHARLESȱW.ȱPOLLOCK,ȱ ȱ AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱ ȱ PetitionerȬAppellant,ȱ CourtȱforȱtheȱCentralȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois. ȱ ȱ ȱ v.ȱ No.ȱ16ȬCVȬ1020ȱ ȱ ȱ UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA,ȱ JamesȱE.ȱShadid,ȱ ȱ RespondentȬAppellee.ȱ ChiefȱJudge.ȱ ȱ

OȱRȱDȱEȱRȱ

Afterȱweȱaffirmedȱhisȱconvictionȱandȱ20Ȭyearȱsentenceȱforȱunlawfulȱpossessionȱofȱ aȱfirearmȱbyȱaȱfelon,ȱunlawfulȱpossessionȱofȱammunitionȱbyȱaȱfelon,ȱandȱattemptedȱ witnessȱtampering,ȱseeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱPollock,ȱ757ȱF.3dȱ582,ȱ586ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2014),ȱCharlesȱ Pollockȱfiledȱaȱcollateralȱattackȱunderȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2255.ȱWeȱgrantedȱPollockȱaȱcertificateȱofȱ appealabilityȱallowingȱhimȱtoȱappealȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱhisȱattorneyȱprovidedȱ constitutionallyȱdeficientȱrepresentationȱatȱtheȱsentencingȱhearing.ȱBecauseȱPollock’sȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ *ȱWeȱhaveȱagreedȱtoȱdecideȱthisȱcaseȱwithoutȱoralȱargumentȱbecauseȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱ

recordȱadequatelyȱpresentȱtheȱfactsȱandȱlegalȱarguments,ȱandȱoralȱargumentȱwouldȱnotȱ significantlyȱaidȱtheȱcourt.ȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ34(a)(2)(C).ȱ No.ȱ17Ȭ1006ȱ ȱ Pageȱ2ȱ ȱ attorneyȱexercisedȱprofessionalȱjudgmentȱinȱnotȱcallingȱcertainȱwitnesses,ȱtheȱ ineffectiveȬassistanceȱclaimȱfails,ȱandȱweȱaffirmȱtheȱdenialȱofȱhisȱ§ȱ2255ȱmotion.ȱ

InȱJuneȱ2011,ȱPollockȱwentȱwithȱhisȱthenȬgirlfriend,ȱKimȱBowyer,ȱtoȱhisȱmother’sȱ homeȱtoȱretrieveȱsomeȱofȱhisȱguns,ȱwhich,ȱbecauseȱofȱaȱfelonyȱconvictionȱforȱaggravatedȱ stalking,ȱPollockȱwasȱnotȱallowedȱtoȱpossess.ȱTheyȱcarriedȱseveralȱgunsȱoutȱofȱtheȱhouseȱ andȱplacedȱthemȱinȱtheȱtrunkȱofȱPollock’sȱcar.ȱ ȱ

Oneȱmonthȱlater,ȱBowyerȱcalledȱtheȱpoliceȱandȱreportedȱthatȱPollockȱhadȱforcedȱ herȱoutȱofȱherȱhome,ȱdraggedȱherȱintoȱhisȱcar,ȱdroveȱtoȱhisȱhouse,ȱandȱthenȱrapedȱher.ȱ AfterwardsȱPollockȱfellȱintoȱaȱdepressedȱstate,ȱrecountingȱallȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱkidnappingȱ andȱrapeȱthatȱsheȱhadȱagainstȱhim,ȱandȱguessedȱthatȱherȱdaughterȱalreadyȱhadȱcalledȱtheȱ police.ȱBowyerȱfirstȱtoldȱtheȱpoliceȱthatȱPollockȱsaidȱheȱwasȱgoingȱtoȱkillȱhimselfȱwithȱtheȱ pistolȱheȱhadȱinȱtheȱgarage,ȱbutȱwhenȱsheȱdescribedȱtheȱincidentȱtoȱpoliceȱaȱsecondȱtime,ȱ BowyerȱsaidȱthatȱPollockȱsuggestedȱtheyȱbothȱcommitȱsuicide.ȱ ȱ

Pollockȱwasȱarrestedȱafterȱtheȱpoliceȱfoundȱammunitionȱinȱhisȱhomeȱinȱtheȱcourseȱ ofȱinvestigatingȱBowyer’sȱcomplaint.ȱTheyȱlaterȱfoundȱgunsȱthatȱPollockȱhadȱstoredȱatȱ hisȱhomeȱbecauseȱtheyȱmonitoredȱPollock’sȱcallȱtoȱhisȱfriendȱToddȱClayesȱandȱheardȱ PollockȱaskȱClayesȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱ“stereo”ȱfromȱhisȱcar.ȱWhenȱquestionedȱbyȱtheȱpolice,ȱ ClayesȱadmittedȱtoȱretrievingȱtheȱgunsȱatȱPollock’sȱrequest.ȱ ȱ

Pollockȱwasȱprosecutedȱinȱstateȱcourtȱandȱwasȱacquittedȱofȱallȱchargesȱrelatedȱtoȱ theȱkidnappingȱandȱrapeȱofȱBowyer.ȱButȱaȱfederalȱgrandȱjuryȱindictedȱPollockȱforȱ unlawfulȱpossessionȱofȱaȱfirearmȱandȱunlawfulȱpossessionȱofȱammunition.ȱLater,ȱheȱalsoȱ wasȱchargedȱwithȱattemptedȱwitnessȱtamperingȱbecauseȱheȱsentȱaȱletterȱtoȱClayesȱ encouragingȱhimȱtoȱdodgeȱaȱsubpoenaȱtoȱtestifyȱatȱPollock’sȱfederalȱtrial.ȱAtȱtrial,ȱaȱjuryȱ foundȱPollockȱguiltyȱofȱallȱthreeȱoffenses.ȱ

ThreeȱattorneysȱrepresentedȱPollockȱalongȱtheȱway.ȱInȱthisȱappealȱweȱfocusȱsolelyȱ onȱattorneyȱAnthonyȱVaupel,ȱwhoȱrepresentedȱPollockȱduringȱtheȱsixȱmonthsȱprecedingȱ theȱtrial,ȱatȱtrial,ȱandȱatȱtheȱsentencingȱhearing.ȱ(AlthoughȱPollock’sȱ§ȱ2255ȱmotionȱraisedȱ claimsȱaboutȱhisȱotherȱattorneys,ȱandȱinȱhisȱappellateȱbrief’sȱquestionȱpresentedȱheȱ mentionsȱotherȱstagesȱofȱtheȱcase,ȱPollockȱfocusesȱexclusivelyȱonȱVaupel’sȱperformanceȱ atȱsentencingȱinȱtheȱbodyȱofȱhisȱbrief.)ȱ ȱ

Atȱtheȱsentencingȱhearing,ȱBowyerȱtestifiedȱatȱlengthȱaboutȱtheȱabductionȱandȱ rape.ȱTheȱpartiesȱhadȱagreedȱnotȱtoȱdiscussȱthatȱeventȱatȱtrial,ȱbutȱitȱwasȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱ sentencingȱstageȱbecauseȱtheȱgovernmentȱrecommendedȱthatȱtheȱjudgeȱapplyȱtheȱ No.ȱ17Ȭ1006ȱ ȱ Pageȱ3ȱ ȱ crossȬreferenceȱinȱU.S.S.G.ȱ§ȱ2K2.1(c).ȱUnderȱthatȱsection,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱassignsȱaȱ higherȱbaseȱoffenseȱlevelȱwhenȱtheȱdefendantȱusedȱorȱpossessedȱtheȱfirearmȱ“inȱ connectionȱwithȱtheȱcommissionȱorȱattemptedȱcommissionȱofȱanotherȱoffense.”ȱU.S.S.G.ȱ §ȱ2K2.1(c)(1)(A).ȱTheȱgovernmentȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱjudgeȱshouldȱconsultȱtheȱ guidelineȱforȱcriminalȱsexualȱabuseȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱkidnappingȱandȱrape.ȱ ȱ

VaupelȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱcrossȬreferenceȱforȱcriminalȱsexualȱabuseȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱ appliedȱbecauseȱtheȱgovernmentȱhadȱnotȱshownȱbyȱaȱpreponderanceȱofȱtheȱevidenceȱthatȱ heȱhadȱcommittedȱcriminalȱsexualȱabuse,ȱespeciallyȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱstateȬcourtȱacquittal.ȱ Theȱconductȱalsoȱwasȱnotȱ“temporallyȱproximate”ȱtoȱPollock’sȱpossessionȱofȱanyȱfirearm,ȱ Vaupelȱargued,ȱbecauseȱBowyerȱtestifiedȱthatȱsheȱdidȱnotȱseeȱaȱfirearmȱtheȱnightȱofȱtheȱ sexualȱabuse.ȱAtȱmost,ȱVaupelȱinsisted,ȱPollockȱmentionedȱthatȱheȱhadȱaȱgunȱandȱ suggestedȱtheyȱbothȱcommitȱsuicide.ȱVaupelȱalsoȱattemptedȱtoȱdiscreditȱBowyerȱbyȱ pointingȱoutȱinconsistenciesȱinȱherȱtestimony.ȱHeȱemphasizedȱthatȱBowyerȱhadȱtestifiedȱ inconsistentlyȱaboutȱanotherȱincidentȱearlierȱthatȱyearȱwhenȱPollockȱallegedlyȱstoleȱherȱ truck.ȱBowyerȱhadȱalsoȱsaidȱunderȱoathȱthatȱsheȱneverȱcommunicatedȱbyȱtextȱmessageȱ withȱPollock,ȱbutȱthenȱtestifiedȱthatȱPollockȱsentȱherȱthreateningȱtextȱmessages.ȱ ȱ

TheȱjudgeȱappliedȱtheȱcrossȬreference,ȱreasoningȱthatȱBowyer’sȱtestimonyȱ adequatelyȱshowedȱthatȱPollockȱhadȱthreatenedȱherȱwithȱaȱmurderȬsuicideȱbyȱ mentioningȱhisȱpistolȱshortlyȱafterȱheȱforcedȱherȱtoȱhaveȱsexȱwithȱhim.ȱTheȱjudgeȱ sentencedȱPollockȱtoȱ240ȱmonths’ȱimprisonment,ȱconsistingȱofȱthreeȱ120Ȭmonthȱ sentences,ȱtwoȱofȱwhichȱ(theȱfelonȬinȬpossessionȱconvictions)ȱwouldȱrunȱconcurrently.ȱ WeȱaffirmedȱPollock’sȱsentenceȱonȱappeal.ȱPollock,ȱ757ȱF.3dȱatȱ590–93.ȱ ȱ

Pollockȱfiledȱaȱmotionȱtoȱvacate,ȱsetȱaside,ȱorȱcorrectȱhisȱsentenceȱunderȱ 28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ2255,ȱarguingȱthatȱheȱreceivedȱineffectiveȱassistanceȱofȱcounselȱinȱviolationȱofȱ theȱSixthȱAmendmentȱatȱeveryȱstageȱofȱhisȱcase.ȱTheȱjudgeȱdirectedȱtheȱgovernmentȱtoȱ respond,ȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱprovidedȱaffidavitsȱfromȱeachȱofȱPollock’sȱattorneysȱ denyingȱtheȱallegations.ȱInȱanȱaddendumȱtoȱhisȱreplyȱbrief,ȱPollockȱspecifiedȱthatȱ Vaupel’sȱperformanceȱatȱsentencingȱwasȱdeficientȱbecauseȱheȱfailedȱtoȱcallȱwitnessesȱ whoȱcouldȱhaveȱdiscreditedȱBowyer’sȱtestimony.ȱPollockȱfocusedȱonȱJackȱStrader,ȱaȱ formerȱboyfriendȱofȱBowyer,ȱwhoȱwouldȱtestifyȱthatȱsheȱhadȱfalselyȱaccusedȱhimȱofȱ harmingȱherȱoverȱaȱdecadeȱearlier.ȱTheȱdistrictȱjudgeȱdeniedȱPollock’sȱmotion;ȱtheȱjudgeȱ explainedȱthatȱPollockȱhadȱprovidedȱnoȱevidenceȱtoȱsupportȱhisȱallegations,ȱsuchȱasȱaȱ swornȱaffidavitȱorȱStrader’sȱprofferedȱtestimonyȱfromȱtheȱstateȬcourtȱtrial.ȱWeȱgrantedȱ Pollock’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱcertificateȱofȱappealability,ȱallowingȱhimȱtoȱproceedȱonȱhisȱclaimȱ thatȱsentencingȱcounselȱwasȱconstitutionallyȱdeficient.ȱ ȱ No.ȱ17Ȭ1006ȱ ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ ȱ InȱevaluatingȱtheȱdenialȱofȱPollock’sȱ§ȱ2255ȱmotion,ȱweȱreviewȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱ factualȱfindingsȱforȱclearȱerrorȱandȱitsȱlegalȱconclusionsȱdeȱnovo.ȱSeeȱSuggsȱv.ȱUnitedȱ States,ȱ513ȱF.3dȱ675,ȱ678ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008).ȱWeȱanalyzeȱPollock’sȱineffectiveȬassistanceȱclaimȱ byȱaskingȱ(1)ȱwhetherȱheȱshowedȱthatȱ“counsel’sȱrepresentationȱfellȱbelowȱanȱobjectiveȱ standardȱofȱreasonableness”ȱandȱ(2)ȱwhetherȱ“thereȱisȱaȱreasonableȱprobabilityȱthat,ȱbutȱ forȱcounsel’sȱunprofessionalȱerrors,ȱtheȱresultȱofȱtheȱproceedingȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱ different.”ȱStricklandȱv.ȱWashington,ȱ466ȱU.S.ȱ668,ȱ688,ȱ694ȱ(1984).ȱ ȱ

Onȱappeal,ȱPollockȱfirstȱarguesȱthatȱVaupelȱprovidedȱineffectiveȱassistanceȱofȱ counselȱatȱsentencingȱbecauseȱheȱdidȱnotȱcallȱStraderȱasȱaȱwitness.ȱHeȱalsoȱcontends,ȱforȱ theȱfirstȱtime,ȱthatȱVaupelȱshouldȱhaveȱcalledȱShandelleȱHendersonȱ(Bowyer’sȱdaughter)ȱ andȱtheȱtwoȱpoliceȱofficersȱwhoȱrespondedȱtoȱherȱphoneȱcallȱreportingȱherȱmother’sȱ kidnapping.ȱHenderson,ȱaccordingȱtoȱPollock,ȱadmittedȱatȱtheȱstateȱtrialȱthatȱBowyerȱhadȱ encouragedȱherȱtoȱfalsifyȱherȱtestimony;ȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱwhatȱfavorableȱtestimonyȱheȱ supposedȱtheȱofficersȱwouldȱgive.ȱHeȱassertsȱthatȱVaupel’sȱaffidavitȱisȱsoȱvagueȱthatȱitȱ compelsȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱVaupelȱdidȱnotȱinvestigateȱtheseȱpotentialȱwitnesses.ȱPollockȱ alsoȱfaultsȱVaupelȱforȱnotȱarguingȱthatȱhisȱcriminalȱhistoryȱcategoryȱforȱsentencingȱ purposesȱshouldȱhaveȱbeenȱIII,ȱnotȱIV.ȱ ȱ

BasedȱonȱtheȱrecordȱbeforeȱusȱweȱcannotȱconcludeȱthatȱVaupelȱprovidedȱ ineffectiveȱassistanceȱofȱcounselȱbyȱnotȱcallingȱStrader.ȱInȱhisȱaffidavit,ȱVaupelȱstatesȱthatȱ heȱreviewedȱtheȱtranscriptsȱofȱtheȱstateȬcourtȱtrialȱandȱthatȱheȱmetȱandȱtalkedȱtoȱ“variousȱ witnesses.”ȱStraderȱisȱnotȱnamed,ȱbutȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱ“weȱhaveȱtoȱconclude,”ȱasȱ Pollockȱargues,ȱthatȱVaupelȱneverȱinvestigatedȱwhetherȱStraderȱwouldȱprovideȱhelpfulȱ testimony.ȱHisȱchoiceȱnotȱtoȱcallȱStraderȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱstrategic;ȱVaupelȱaversȱthatȱ “noȱwitnessesȱsupportedȱMr.ȱPollock’sȱversionȱofȱeventsȱorȱsubstantiallyȱrefutedȱanyȱ aspectȱofȱtheȱgovernment’sȱcase.”ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱWilliams,ȱ106ȱF.3dȱ1362,ȱ1367ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ 1997)ȱ(Aȱlawyer’sȱ“decisionȱnotȱtoȱcallȱaȱwitnessȱatȱsentencingȱisȱstrategicȱandȱisȱ ‘generallyȱnotȱsubjectȱtoȱreview.’”)ȱVaupelȱhadȱnoȱobligationȱtoȱcallȱeveryȱpotentialȱ witness,ȱparticularlyȱonȱaȱcollateralȱissue.ȱ

Pollock’sȱargumentsȱthatȱVaupelȱshouldȱhaveȱcalledȱBowyer’sȱdaughterȱandȱtheȱ policeȱofficersȱtoȱtestifyȱatȱtheȱsentencingȱhearingȱareȱdefaulted.ȱPollockȱdidȱnotȱmentionȱ Bowyer’sȱdaughterȱinȱanyȱofȱhisȱdistrictȱcourtȱfilings,ȱandȱsaidȱonlyȱthatȱVaupelȱ“couldȱ haveȱcalled”ȱtheȱpoliceȱofficers.ȱPollockȱhasȱnotȱshownȱthatȱheȱhasȱcauseȱforȱtheȱdefault,ȱ orȱthatȱheȱwasȱprejudiced.ȱSeeȱMcCoyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ815ȱF.3dȱ292,ȱ295ȱ(7thȱCir.),ȱcert.ȱ denied,ȱ137ȱS.ȱCt.ȱ260ȱ(2016).ȱ No.ȱ17Ȭ1006ȱ ȱ Pageȱ5ȱ ȱ Butȱevenȱifȱweȱwereȱtoȱconsiderȱtheseȱarguments,ȱtheyȱwouldȱfail.ȱPollockȱgivesȱusȱ noȱreasonȱtoȱquestionȱVaupel’sȱassertionȱthatȱnoȱwitnessȱhadȱfavorableȱtestimonyȱtoȱgiveȱ atȱtheȱsentencingȱhearing,ȱandȱitȱtakesȱmoreȱthanȱPollock’sȱbaldȱassertionsȱtoȱshowȱthatȱ theȱsentencingȱpictureȱwouldȱhaveȱlookedȱdifferentȱwithȱtheȱtestimonyȱofȱtheseȱ witnesses.ȱSeeȱStrickland,ȱ466ȱU.S.ȱatȱ699–700.ȱ

Toȱbolsterȱhisȱclaims,ȱPollockȱfiledȱaȱmotionȱinȱthisȱcourtȱtoȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱ withȱanȱaffidavitȱfromȱStraderȱstatingȱthatȱBowyerȱwrongfullyȱaccusedȱStraderȱofȱ domesticȱviolenceȱinȱ1998.ȱButȱthisȱaffidavitȱwasȱnotȱomittedȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱonȱappealȱ “byȱerrorȱorȱaccident,”ȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ10(e)(2)(C);ȱitȱisȱnotȱinȱtheȱrecordȱbecauseȱitȱwasȱ neverȱfiledȱinȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱandȱPollockȱdidȱnotȱaskȱtheȱdistrictȱjudgeȱforȱleaveȱtoȱ supplementȱtheȱrecord.ȱSeeȱMidwestȱFenceȱCorp.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStatesȱDepȇtȱofȱTrans.,ȱ840ȱF.3dȱ 932,ȱ946ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2016)ȱ(explainingȱthatȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ10(e)ȱprovidesȱnoȱgroundȱforȱ appellateȱcourtȱtoȱadmitȱonȱappealȱanyȱdocumentȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱmadeȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱ recordȱinȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt.).ȱPollock’sȱmotionȱtoȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱisȱdenied.ȱ ȱ ȱ

WeȱhaveȱconsideredȱPollock’sȱotherȱargumentsȱ(includingȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱVaupelȱ shouldȱhaveȱobjectedȱtoȱtheȱcriminalȱhistoryȱcategory,ȱanȱobjectionȱthatȱVaupel,ȱinȱfact,ȱ madeȱinȱhisȱsentencingȱmemorandum)ȱandȱconcludeȱthatȱnoneȱhasȱmerit.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱ decisionȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱisȱAFFIRMED.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ