United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. MALONEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Movant Jonathan Hale Davis's motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his
sentence (ECF No. 1) and supplements thereto (ECF Nos. 21,
22). The Government has filed responses (ECF Nos. 19, 25) and
Movant has filed a reply (ECF No. 20). Also before the Court
are Movant's motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No.
3), motion to compel (ECF No. 10), and motion to supplement
the motion under § 2255 (ECF No. 26). For the reasons
that follow, all motions will be denied.
2011, Movant was charged with being a felon in possession of
a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count 1), possession
of cocaine base with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) 841(b)(1)(C) (Count 2), and possession
of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 3). (Indictment, United
States v. Davis, No. 1:11-cr-245 (W.D. Mich.), ECF No.
1.) The indictment was filed after officers found Movant in a
vehicle in possession of a pistol, ten individually-wrapped
packages of crack cocaine, a razor blade, rubber gloves, and
a digital scale. United States v. Davis, 533 F.
App'x 576, 579 (6th Cir. 2013). The pistol was located in
Movant's waistband. Shortly before Movant's arrest,
officers had tracked a suspect involved in an armed home
invasion to a hotel. Id. at 578-79. When the police
found Movant, he was waiting for the suspect outside the
hotel, at night, with his engine running. Id. at
trial, Movant's counsel filed an unsuccessful motion to
suppress the evidence found in Movant's possession,
including the gun and the drugs. After the Court denied the
motion, Movant conditionally pleaded guilty to all three
counts in the indictment, reserving the right to appeal the
Court's ruling on the suppression motion, and the right
to withdraw his guilty plea if his appeal was successful. The
plea agreement made clear that Movant was subject to a
maximum sentence of life imprisonment on Counts 1 and 3:
Count 1. The defendant acknowledges that he is subject to the
enhanced penalties provided in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1),
because the defendant has been convicted of three or more
violent felonies and/or serious drug offenses. Accordingly,
the defendant is subject to a sentence of at least
fifteen years' up to life imprisonment . . . .
. . .
Count 3. The statutory sentence the Court shall impose for a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) is the
following: a mandatory minimum of five years up to life
imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence
imposed for Counts 1 and 2 . . . .
(Plea Agreement, Davis, No. 1:11-cr-245, ECF No. 22,
PageID.114 (emphasis added).) In addition, Movant signed the
I have read this agreement and carefully discussed every part
of it with my attorney. I understand the terms of this
agreement, and I voluntarily agree to those terms. My
attorney has advised me of my rights, of possible defenses,
of the sentencing provisions, and of the consequences of
entering into this agreement. No promises or inducements have
been made to me other than those contained in this agreement.
(Id. at PageID.118.)
sentencing, the Government prepared a report indicating that
Movant had several prior convictions that might qualify as a
“violent felony” or a “serious drug
offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e), including: two juvenile convictions in
1994 and 1995 for possession with intent to deliver
cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); a
juvenile conviction in 1995 for second-degree home invasion,
Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a(3); a conviction in 1998 for
delivery and manufacture of less than 50 grams of cocaine
base; a conviction in 2002 for delivery and manufacture of
marijuana; and a conviction in 2005 for assaulting a prison
employee, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.197c. (Presentence
Report, Davis, No. 1:11-cr-245, ECF No. 29.)
Movant's counsel submitted written objections arguing
that Movant did not qualify as an armed career criminal under
the ACCA. Specifically, counsel argued that juvenile
adjudications should not count as a serious drug offense, and
that the conviction for home invasion should not count as a
violent felony. Counsel acknowledged that Movant qualified
for the career-offender enhancement in § 4B1.1 of the
Sentencing Guidelines, but counsel asked the Court to
sentence Movant as if he was not a career offender.
sentencing hearing, Movant's counsel raised the same
objections to the ACCA enhancement, but the Court found that
Movant was an armed career criminal because of the two
juvenile adjudications for possession with intent to deliver
cocaine in 1994/1995, the adult drug conviction in 1998, and
the juvenile conviction for home invasion, which the Court
found was a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e)(2). (Sent. Tr. 11-13, 38-40, 46-49,
Davis, No. 1:11-cr-245, ECF No. 39.) The Court also
found that Movant was a career offender under the Sentencing
Guidelines, and sentenced Movant to a total of 264 months of
imprisonment for Counts 1 and 2, and a consecutive 60 months
of imprisonment for Count 3, for a total of 324 months of
imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release. The
sentence for Counts 1 and 2 was near the bottom of the range
determined by the Guidelines, and accounted for a three-point
reduction in Movant's offense level due to the fact that
he pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for his
filed an appeal and the Court's judgment was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Among other
things, Movant challenged his classification as an armed
career criminal, claiming that his juvenile adjudications for
drug offenses and his conviction for home invasion do not
qualify as prior convictions under the ACCA. The Court of
Appeals declined to rule on the issue because Movant's
sentence was determined by the Guidelines rather than the
statutory minimum in the ACCA. Thus, any error in determining
that Movant was an armed career criminal was harmless.
Davis, 533 F. App'x at 583. Movant then filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari, which was denied by the
Supreme Court on December 16, 2013.
motion under § 2255, Movant asserts the following
grounds for relief:
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel during Pre-Trial Stage.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel during Plea Process.
III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel during the Sentencing
IV. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel during the Appeal