Johnson v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedNovember 1, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01362
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. United States (Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. United States, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 BRADFORD MARSELAS JOHNSON, No. 2:22-cv-01362-RAJ 12 Petitioner, v. 13

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 2255 MOTION

15 Respondent. 16

18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Bradford Johnson’s 20 (“Petitioner” or “Johnson”) Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence under 28 21 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Motion”). Civ. Dkt. # 1. Having reviewed the briefs submitted by the 22 parties and the relevant portions of the record, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing 23 is unnecessary. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion. 24 II. BACKGROUND 25 The Ninth Circuit summarized the factual background of this case as follows: 26

27 On November 21, 2017, two armed and disguised men walked into a licensed marijuana dispensary in Washington State. They ordered the 1 employees at gunpoint to hand over cash and garbage bags filled with 2 marijuana. Unbeknownst to the two robbers, however, the dispensary owner was monitoring the store on a live surveillance feed. He called the 3 police, who quickly arrived at the dispensary. The robbers made their getaway through a back door, leaving most of their haul behind. Police 4 arrested Defendants several hours later. Store employees later identified 5 Defendants as the two men who had robbed the store. Though neither Defendant was armed upon arrest, Johnson was later linked to one of the 6 weapons believed to have been used in the robbery: an MG Industries, 7 model Marck-15, 7.62x39 rifle. Woodberry’s gun was never recovered.

8 United States v. Woodberry, 987 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 371 (2021). 9 On February 22, 2018, a grand jury sitting in the Western District of Washington 10 returned an indictment against Johnson and Eric Woodberry. USA v. Johnson, 18-cr- 11 00049, Dkt. # 21 (“Crim. Dkt.”). Johnson was charged with a Hobbs Act robbery (Count 12 One); possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (Count Two); possession of a 13 firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (Count Three); and felon in possession of a 14 firearm (Count Five). Id. A superseding indictment dated May 22, 2019 charged Johnson 15 with the same four offenses but clarified the mens rea on certain counts. Crim. Dkt. ## 16 125, 129. 17 The matter proceeded to trial on June 17, 2019. Crim. Dkt. # 158. The jury found 18 Johnson guilty as charged with respect to Counts 1-3. Crim. Dkt. # 172. For Count 3, the 19 jury also found that the firearm was brandished and was a short-barreled rifle. Crim. Dkt. 20 # 172. Count 5 was tried to the bench, and this Court returned a guilty verdict. Crim. Dkt. 21 # 174. The parties appeared for a sentencing hearing on December 6, 2019. Crim. Dkt. # 22 224. This Court imposed a sentence of 30 months on Counts 1, 2, and 5, to be served 23 concurrently with each other but consecutively to a 120-month sentence on Count 3, for a 24 total sentence of 150 months. Id. 25 Johnson appealed. Crim. Dkt. # 225. On February 11, 2021, the Court of Appeals 26 for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a published opinion, and later denied a motion for 27 1 rehearing en banc. Crim. Dkt. ## 234, 235. Johnson filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, 2 which was denied on October 21, 2021. Crim. Dkt. # 239. On September 23, 2022, 3 Johnson filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Civ. 4 Dkt. 1. The Government filed a response to the Motion, Civ. Dkt. # 6, to which Petitioner 5 filed a reply. Civ. Dkt. # 11. 6 III. DISCUSSION 7 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner in custody may move the court which imposed 8 the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence in the following circumstances: 9 (1) the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or federal laws; (2) the 10 court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence; or (3) the sentence was in excess 11 of the maximum authorized by law or otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 12 2255(a).1 13 A one-year statute of limitation applies to § 2255 motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 14 2255(f). As applicable to this case, this one-year period began when the judgment of 15 conviction became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). The Ninth Circuit affirmed 16 Petitioner’s convictions on February 11, 2021, which later became final when the 17 Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition on October 21, 2021. See Woodberry v. 18 United States, 211 L. Ed. 2d 197 (2021). Petitioner filed his § 2255 motion on September 19 23, 2022, thus, the Motion is timely. Civ. Dkt. # 1. 20 Petitioner brings four claims under this Motion: (1) the Court “unlawfully usurped 21 federal criminal jurisdiction” and subsequently did not have jurisdiction over his conduct 22 in this matter; (2) the indictment was “insufficiently written” in respect to Counts 2 and 23 3; (3) the Court erred in determining, for purposes of Count 3, that a Hobbs Act Robbery 24 is a crime of violence; and (4) the Court erred by failing to instruct the jury that Petitioner 25 “had to know the firearm was less than 16 inches in length” to be convicted under 18 26 U.S.C. S. 924(c)(1)(b)(i). Id. 27 1 As a threshold matter, Petitioner is currently incarcerated and meets the custody requirement. 1 The Government argues that Petitioner’s first three claims are procedurally 2 defaulted. The Court agrees. Procedural default occurs when a habeas petitioner fails to 3 raise a claim on direct appeal. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, (2003); 4 United States v. Braswell, 501 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 2007). There are several 5 reasons a court can excuse procedural default: (1) cause and prejudice, United States v. 6 Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167–68 (1982); (2) fundamental miscarriage of justice resulting in 7 the conviction of one actually innocent, Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495 (1986); 8 and (3) waiver of the default by the government, Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 9 1229–30 (9th Cir. 2002). Petitioner failed to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction and the 10 indictment at trial, and failed to challenge the nature of a Hobbs Act robbery as a crime of 11 violence. Furthermore, Petitioner did not raise these claims on appeal before the Ninth 12 Circuit. Petitioner’s briefing here fails to show cause and prejudice to overcome 13 procedural default. Petitioner’s claims also fail on the merits. 14 A. The Court’s jurisdiction was proper. 15 Petitioner first argues that this Court lacked jurisdiction over his conduct and 16 judgment was entered against him through the national government’s interference with 17 state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment. As noted above, Petitioner has 18 procedurally defaulted on this claim because he did not raise it at trial or on appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Frady
456 U.S. 152 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Murray v. Carrier
477 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Massaro v. United States
538 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2003)
United States v. Charles E. Larsen
952 F.2d 1099 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. John Lanny Lynch
437 F.3d 902 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Braswell
501 F.3d 1147 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-wawd-2023.