United States v. Malone

713 F. Supp. 2d 560, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50795, 2010 WL 2033198
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedMay 24, 2010
DocketCase 1:07CR00037
StatusPublished

This text of 713 F. Supp. 2d 560 (United States v. Malone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Malone, 713 F. Supp. 2d 560, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50795, 2010 WL 2033198 (W.D. Va. 2010).

Opinion

OPINION

JAMES P. JONES, Chief Judge.

By prior opinion and order, 1 1 dismissed all but one of the claims raised in this Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006), based upon my finding that, pursuant to a written plea agreement, the defendant had entered a valid waiver of his right to raise a collateral challenge to the judgment or sentence pursuant to § 2255. As to the remaining claim, that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal after the defendant asked him to do so, I conducted an evidentiary hearing. This opinion sets forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which I base my determination that the defendant is not entitled to relief under § 2255.

I

Because my previous opinion included a detailed account of the procedural history in this case, I offer only an abbreviated version here, supplemented with facts developed at the March 2, 2010 evidentiary hearing.

Lonnie Edward Malone was charged in June 2007 with the distribution of crack cocaine, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and related offenses. He retained counsel and pleaded not guilty. Plea negotiations failed to produce an agreement. Malone steadfastly denied selling drugs, maintaining that the drugs found in his home were for his own consumption. The government then obtained a superseding indictment that added the charge that Malone had conspired with others to distribute methamphetamine and crack cocaine.

Shortly before a scheduled trial on the superseding indictment, Malone entered into a plea agreement with the government by which he pleaded guilty to Count One, possession of a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (B) (West Supp.2009), and to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846 (West 1999 & Supp.2009), a lesser included offense of Count Six. Malone’s attorney advised him that this plea agreement was in his best interests, because it capped his mandatory minimum sentence exposure at 15 years of imprisonment and allowed him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility.

In the course of conducting a standard plea colloquy on February 29, 2008, I discussed the plea agreement’s terms and sentencing procedures with Malone. Paragraph 1 of the plea agreement indicated that the maximum sentence for the gun charge was life imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, and that the maximum sentence for the conspiracy offense was 40 years of imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of five *563 years. Paragraphs 4 and 19 of the plea agreement indicated Malone’s understanding that the court, in its discretion, would determine the appropriate sentence, with reference to the sentencing guideline range applicable to his case, up to the statutory maximum. Malone signed the plea agreement and affirmed under oath in court that he understood its terms. 2 I explained to Malone that until I determined at sentencing what the guideline range was, there was no guarantee as to what his sentence would be, except that I would be required to sentence him to at least 15 years in prison. Malone indicated that he understood. I determined that he was entering a knowing and voluntary plea and accepted it.

I sentenced Malone on May 19, 2008. The presentence investigation report (“PSR”) indicated that Malone’s sentencing range under the advisory sentencing guidelines for the conspiracy count was 210 to 262 months. I sentenced Malone at the bottom of that range to 210 months imprisonment. With a consecutive, mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months on the gun charge, the total sentence imposed was 330 months imprisonment. At the close of the hearing, I stated:

I advise the defendant that he has waived his right to appeal this sentence, and that waiver is binding unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally impermissible factor. If the right of appeal does exist, a person who is unable to pay the costs may apply for leave to appeal without pre-payment of such costs. Any notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, or within ten days of a notice of appeal by the Government. If requested, the clerk will prepare and file a notice of appeal on behalf of the defendant.

(Sent. Tr. 14-15, May 19, 2008.)

Immediately after sentencing, Malone asked his defense counsel about appealing the sentence and said that he wanted it appealed. Counsel told Malone that he would come to the jail that night to discuss the matter. 3 Pamela Malone, the defendant’s daughter-in-law, saw Malone talking with his attorney, but did not hear any of their conversation.

Pamela met with the attorney outside the courthouse on the sidewalk and asked him how much time Malone received. The attorney advised her that Malone had been sentenced to 27 and one-half years of imprisonment. Pamela told the attorney that she understood Malone would be sentenced to only 15 years. The attorney told her, “We knew it could go up.” The attorney told Pamela that Malone had a right to appeal, but that counsel would not file it, because Malone had signed the plea bargain. Pamela did not speak further with the attorney that day. She later talked with him by telephone about picking up documents from Malone’s file, but she had *564 no further discussion with him about a possible appeal.

The defendant’s son, Joseph Malone, was also present at the defendant’s sentencing hearing and followed defense counsel out of the courthouse to talk with him. Joseph told the attorney that according to his understanding, the defendant had bargained for a 15-year sentence. Counsel told Joseph that the plea agreement recognized that the sentence could be more than 15 years. Joseph did not talk to the attorney that day about filing an appeal.

When counsel did not come to the jail that evening, Malone did not try to call counsel on the telephone about an appeal, because he knew that the attorney would not take collect calls. Instead, Malone called Joseph and asked him to contact the attorney about an appeal. On his father’s behalf, Joseph went to see the attorney in his office a day or two after sentencing. They talked for 10 or 15 minutes. The attorney told Joseph that filing an appeal would be a breach of the plea agreement that could result in Malone losing the sentencing benefit he had gained for acceptance of responsibility, which would make his guideline range higher. The attorney told Joseph that for these reasons, he would not further represent Malone in an appeal and that the defendant should feel free to seek counsel elsewhere. Joseph asked counsel if he could get copies of his father’s file. Some time later, the attorney’s office called Joseph to tell him that the copies were ready, and he came to the office to retrieve the files. Joseph had no further discussions with the attorney about filing an appeal on Malone’s behalf.

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

Related

Peguero v. United States
526 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
528 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Edward Donald Miller v. United States
261 F.2d 546 (Fourth Circuit, 1958)
United States v. Roderick Tyronda Witherspoon
231 F.3d 923 (Fourth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Poindexter
492 F.3d 263 (Fourth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
713 F. Supp. 2d 560, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50795, 2010 WL 2033198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-malone-vawd-2010.