Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_12-cr-20420-0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 15-61094-CIV-SElTZ/WHlTE PHI LLI P MI CKLE, Movant , UNI TED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT. DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. AND CLOSING CASE THI S CAUSE i s bef ore t he Court on t he Report of Magi s t rat e J udge ( DE-191 and Movant ' s Ob ject i ons g DE- 23). I n t hat Report , Magi s tr at e Judge Whi t e r ecommends t hat Movant ' s Amended Mot i on f or Rel i ef Purs uant t o j 2255 g DE- 8) be deni ed. Movant r ai s ed s i x gr ounds f or r el i ef: (1 ) couns el was i nef f ect i ve f or f ai l i ng t o conduct f urt her i nves t i gat i on i nt o pol ice mi sconduct due to a confli ct of i nt erest based upon counsel havi ng fami l y members who wer e pol i ce; ( 2) counsel was i nef f ect i ve for advi sing Movant t o s t i pul at e t o t he f act s t hat l abor at or y t es t i ng f ound t he s ubst ances wer e cr ack cocai ne and cocai ne powder ; (3) couns el ' s advi ce t o s t i pul at e t o t he nat ur e of t he s ubs t ances was a di r ect r esul t of her conf l i ct of i nt er est ar i s i ng f r om t he f act t hat counsel had f ami l y member s who wer e pol i ce; ( 4) t he gover nment f ai l ed t o cor r ect f al s e t es t i mony; ( 5) t he Movant has r eser ved t he r i ght t o chal l enge pri or convi ct i ons not l i s t ed i n t he i ndi ct ment ; and ( 6) the pros ecut or' s per sonal opi ni ons of t he f act s depri ved Movant of a fai r t ri al.The Report found that Movant fai l ed t o provi de any support for gr ound number 5 and t hat t he r emai ni ng f i ve gr ounds l acked mer i t.Movant has f i l ed obj ect i ons, Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 1 of 7 which simpl y repeat the argument s Movant made i n his i nit i al papers.l Havi ng consi dered t he Report , t he Movant' s Object i ons, and t he r ecor d, t he Court t lnds t hat t he Magi s t r at e Judge was not cl earl y erroneous i n his fact ual summar y of t he record and hi s l egal concl usions correctl y appl i ed t he 1 aw t o t he f act s. Ther ef or e, t he Cour t wi l l over r ul e t he Object i ons , af f i r m t he Report and deny the mot i on. Movant' s Obj ect i ons Sever al of Movant' s object i ons ar e based on hi s cl ai ms of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of couns el . I n or der t o es t a bl i s h an i nef f ec t i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m, Movant mus t prove t hat: (1) counsel ' s r epr es ent at i on of Movant f el l bel ow an objedi ve st andar d of r easonabl eness and ( 2) t he det ki ent per f onnance pr e judi ced Mova nt. See St ri ckl and v. Washi ngt on, 466 U. S. 668, 687- 88 (1984) . Under t he f i r s t pr ong of t he St ri ckl and st andar d, Movant bear s a heavy bur den: he S ç mus t es t abl i sh t hat no compet ent counsel woul d have t aken t he act i on t hat hi s counsel di d t ake. ' ' Chandl er v. US. , 2 18 F. 3d 1305, 1315 (1 1t h Ci r . 2000) ( ci t at i on and f oot not e omi t t ed) . Under the second prong, Movant must show that ç k t here is a reasonable probabil i t y that, but for counsel ' s unpr of essi onal er r or s, t he r es ul t of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . ' ' St ri ckl and, 466 U. S. at 694. i 1 A reasonabl e probabil it y i s a probabi l i ty suff icient to undermi ne conf idence i n t he outcome. ' ' Id Movant Has Not Shown an Adverse Ff/ èc/ o fAny Con jl ict o flnt er est Movant ' s t ir s t obj ect i on i s t wof ol d.Fi r s t , he object s t o t he deni al of an evi dent i ar y hear i ng and s econd, he object s t o t he t i ndi ng t hat hi s counsel di d not have a conf l i ct of i nt eres t . l l n f act , i n hi s Ob ject i ons , i ns t ead of maki ng any ar gument s i n r es pons e t o t he Report ' s concl usi on as t o cl aim 6, Movant simpl y di rects t he Court to hi s i ni ti al Repl y. 2 Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 2 of 7 The evi dent i ar y hear i ng i ss ue i s addr ess ed bel ow. As t o t he conf l i ct of i nt erest, M ovant merel y reargues t he argument s raised in hi s Motion. Movant mai nt ai ns that hi s counsel had a cont li ct of i nt er es t because she had f nmi l y membe rs who wer e pol i ce of lcer s and, t hus, woul d not at t ack a pol i ce of f i cer ' s reput at i on or jeopar di ze hi s job.Counsel ' s al l eged cont li ct i s r el evant becaus e Movant ' s def ens e was t hat t he of f i cers pl ant ed t he dr ugs and weapon on hi m and t hat he was a poss i bl e t ar get of pol i ce becaus e of hi s par t i ci pati on as a pot ent i al wi t ness agai nst ot her Mi ami pol i ce of f i cer s. l n Cuyl er v. Sul l i van, 446 U. S. 335, 347 (1980), t he Supr eme Court s t at ed, t s l i qn or der t o es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of t he Si xt h Amendment , a defendant who r ai s ed no object i on at t r i al must demonst r at e t hat an act ual conf l i ct of i nt er es t adversel y af f ect ed hi s l awyer' s per f or mance. ' ' The El event h Ci rcui t has hel d t hat an act ual conf l i ct of i nt er est exi s t s when a l awyer has i ncons i s t ent i nt er es t s. Freund v. But t erwort h, 165 F. 3d 839, 859 (1 1t h Ci r . 1 999) . V s l n orde r t o pr ove t hat an act ual cont l i ct hi nder ed pet i t i oner' s l awyer' s per for mance, pet i t i oner mus t make a f act ual s howi ng of i ncons i s t ent i nt eres t s or poi nt t o s pecif i c i nst ances i n t he r ecor d t o s uggest an act ual i mpai nnent of hi s or her i nt er es t s. ' ' fJ. ( quot at i ons omi t t ed). l f a movant i s unabl e t o pr ove an act ual conf l i ct of i nt er es t , t hen he i s not ent i t l ed t o r el i et l Uni t edst at es v. Novat on, 271 F. 3d 968, 101 1 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2001) .I f a movant es t abl i s hes an act ual cont l i ct , he mus t t hen prove an adver se ef f ect . To do s o he must est abl i s h t hr ee element s: (1) he must poi nt t o s ome pl aus i bl e al t er nat i ve def ens e s t r at egy or t act i c t hat mi ght have been purs ued; ( 2) he must demonst r at e t hat t he al t enz at i ve s t r at egy or t act i c was r eas onabl e under t he f act s; and ( 3) he mus t s how some l i nk bet ween t he act ual confl ict and the deci sion to forgo the al t ernat ive st rat egy of defense. Freund, 165 F. 3d at 860. Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 3 of 7 Here, ass umi ng an act ual conf l i ct , Movant has not es t abl i shed an advers e ef f ect. As set out i n det ai l i n t he Report , despi t e Movant ' s as sert i ons ot her wi se, hi s couns el di d at t ack t he eredi bi l i t y of pol i ce of f i cers dur i ng bot h cr os s- exami nat i on and cl os i ng ar gument s. Counsel also di d conduct on i nvest i ga t i on of one of t he ar r es t i ng of lcers and used t he i nf or ma t i on obt ai ned t o i mpeac h t he of scer. Movant has not set out any al t emat i ve s t ra t egy ot her t han i nves t i gat i ng and at t acki ng t he credi bi l i t y of t he pol i ce of f i cers. Thi s i s wha t counsel di d.Thus, Movant has f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h an adver se eff ect of any cont li ct of int er es t . Cons equent l y, t hi s object i on i s ovenul ed. Ent eri ng Int o t he St i pul at i on Dl d Not Pr e judi ce Movant Movant' s s econd obj ect i on ar gues t hat couns el was inef f ect i ve f or advi s i ng hi m t o ent er i nt o t he s t i pul at i on t hat s t i pul at ed t hat s ubs t ances of f i cers t es t i f i ed wer e f ound on Movant wer e cocaine and cocaine base. Movant assert s t hat agreei ng t o t he sti pul ati on was t he equi val ent of admi t t i ng t hat he poss ess ed cocai ne. Movant cannot show how t he s t i pul at i on pr ej udi ced hi m because the sti pul at ion onl y sti pul at ed t hat l aboratory t esti ng of t he substances showed t hey were cocai ne and cocai ne base. Regardl ess of t he st i pul at i on, t he gover nment st i l l had t o s how t hat Movant possessed t he cocai ne. Furt hermore, if Movant had not entered i nto the st i pul ati on, t he govenz ment woul d have pr es ent ed t est i mony of t he 1 ab t ecl mi ci an who t es t ed t he subs t ances. Thus, Movant has not shown pre j udi ce and t hi s object i on i s over r ul ed. Movant ' s t hi r d object i on ar gues t ha t because of counsel ' s cont li ct of i nt erest , Movant need not s how t hat ent er i ng i nt o t he s t i pul at i on pre judi ced hi m. Even i f t hat wer e t r ue, as s et out above, Movant woul d need t o pr ove t hat he entered int o t he sti pulati on because of t he confli ct of i nt er es t and he suf f er ed an advers e ef f ect as a r esul t . However , Movant has not s hown an 4 Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 4 of 7 adver se ef f ec t f r om ent eri ng i nt o t he s t i pul at i on. Because, as st ated, had he not ent ered i nto t he s t i pul at i on, t he gover nment woul d mer el y have pr esent ed t he l ab t ecl mi ci an' s t es t i mony. Consequent l y, t hi s object i on i s over r ul ed. Movant Cannot Prevail on Hi s Gi gli o Clai m Movant ' s f our t h object i on asse rt s t hat he was pr e j udi ced by t he pr osecut or s' f ai l ure t o cor r td t he f al s e t es t i mony of Of t ker Bai n.Fi r s t, t he Report f ound t hat t hi s i ss ue i s pr ocedural l y ba rr ed becaus e Movant f ai l ed t o r ai se i t on di red appeal. I n order t o over come t he pr ocedural ba r, Movant woul d have t o s how ca us e f or not r ai s i ng t he cl ai m on di rect appeal and adual pr e judi ce. Lynn v. Uni t ed St at es, 365 F. 3d 1 225, 1 234 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2004). Second, i f he over comes t he pr ocedur al bar , i n or der t o pr evai l on t hi s Gi gl i o cl ai m, Movant t s mus t poi nt t o speci f i c f act s es t abl i shi ng t hat t he t es t i mony was 1) us ed by t he st at e, 2) f al se, 3) known by t he st at e t o be f al se, and 4) mat er i al t o t he gui l t or i nnocence of t he def endant . ' ' Wi l l i ams v. Gri swal d, 743 F. 2d 1533, 1542 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 984). The Report f ound t hat Movant coul d not show pr e j udi ce i n or der t o over come t he pr ocedur al bar or t o pr evai l on hi s Gi gl i o cl ai ms. Even ass umi ng t hat Movant coul d s how pr e j udi ce, he has not pr esent ed any speci f i c f act s i ndi cat i ng t hat t he gover nment knew t hat Of t scer Bai n' s t es t i mony was f al se. Consequent l y, t hi s obj ect i on i s ovenul ed. Movant' s Fi nal Ob ject i on i s Overrul ed Moavnt' s f i nal ob ject i on s i mpl y di r ect s t he Cour t to l ook at Movant ' s i ni t i al Repl y t o t he gover nment ' s bri ef . Thi s i s not a pr oper object i on and i s cl ear l y j us t a r eargument of hi s earl i er arguments. Consequentl y, i t i s overruled. Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 5 of 7 An Evi denti aG Heari ng i s Not Regui red A court need not hol d an evi dent i ar y heari ng i f t he S û f i l es and r ecor ds of t he case eoncl usi vel y show t hat t he pr i sone r i s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef . ' ' 28 U. S. C. j 2255*) . Thus, an evi dent iary heari ng is not requi red when the contenti ons of a movant are affirmati vel y cont r adi ct ed by t he r ecor d or when t he cont ent i ons of a movant a re concl usor y and unsuppor t ed by s peci f i cs. Bl ackl edge v. Al l i son, 431 U. S. 63, 74 (1977) . As set out i n t he Magi s t rat e J udge' s Report and her ei n, Movant' s cl ai ms ar e wi t hout mer it and t hus he i s not ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ar y hear i ng. The Court Wi l l Not Is sue A Cert i fi cat e of Appeal abil i l The Court wi l l deny i ss uance of a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y f or Movant ' s mot i on pursuant t o Rul e 1 1 of t he Rul es Govemi ng Secti on 2255 Cases. The Court , having establi shed gr ounds f or ent er i ng a i é f i nal or der advers e t o t he appl i cant ' ' on t hi s mot i on, û ç mus t i ssue or deny a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y. ' ' l n or der t o obt ai n a cert i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y, Movant mus t make 1 ç a subs t ant i al showi ng of t he deni al of a const i t ut i onal ri ght . ' ' 28 U. S. C. j 2253( c) ( 2) . Thi s s t andar d i s sat i s f i ed t ç by demons t r at i ng t hat jur i st s of r eason coul d di s agree wi t h t he di st r i ct court ' s r es ol ut i on of hi s const i t ut i onal cl ai ms or t hatjur i s t s coul d concl ude t he i s sues pr es ent ed ar e adequat e t o deser ve encour agement t o pr oceed f ur t her. ' ' Jones v. Secret ar y, 607 F. 3d 1346, 1349 (1 1t h Ci r . 2010) ( quot at i on omi t t ed). Her e, Movant has not made t hi s showi ng. Thus, havi ng careful l y revi ewed, de novo, Magi strate Judge Whi te' s Report , the record, and Movant ' s object i ons , i t i s ORDERED t hat: 6 Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 6 of 7 The above- ment i oned Repor t of Magi s t r at e Judge ( DE-19j i s AFFI RMED and ADOPTED, and i ncor por at ed by r ef er ence i nt o t hi s Cour t ' s Or der. ( 2) Movant ' s Amended Mot i on for Rel i ef Purs uant t o j 2255 E DE- 8) i s DENI ED. Movant ' s Object i ons g DE- 23) ar e OVERRULED. Al l pending mot ions not ot herwise ruled upon i n this Order are DENIED AS MOOT. ( 5) Thi s cas e i s CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED i n Mi ami , Fl or i da, t hi s % ay of J une, 2016. * - 1 PATRICIA A. SEITZ UNI TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Magi strate Judge W hi t e All Counsel of Record 7 Case 1:12-cr-20420-JAL Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2016 Page 7 of 7