United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 TO
VACATE [#110] AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
DENISE PAGE HOOD, JUDGE
January 4, 2012, Defendant Jajuan Martinez Lewis
(“Lewis”) was charged in an Indictment with one
count of Felon in Possession of a Firearm (18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1)). The original indictment was dismissed without
prejudice on February 5, 2013 (United States v. Jajuan
Martinez Lewis, No. 12-20006 (Lewis I)). On February
14, 2013, Lewis was again indicted on the same charge based
on the same underlying facts. (Doc # 9) On February 3, 2015,
a jury found Lewis guilty. The Court sentenced Lewis to be
imprisoned for a total term of 63 months, followed by
supervised release for a term of two years. The Court entered
a Judgment on November 6, 2015. (Doc # 83) Lewis filed an
appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence used
against him, and argued that the district court abused its
discretion by allowing two probation officers to testify
during trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit found Lewis's challenges without merit, and
affirmed the judgment. (Doc # 108)
filed an initial Motion to Suppress in the first case, which
was heard, and denied by the court in February 2013.
Defendant, represented by new counsel, filed a new Motion to
Suppress, which was also heard, and denied by this Court on
January 9, 2017. (Doc # 57)
background of the investigation that led to the search
warrant and the search itself is more fully discussed in this
Court's previous opinion denying the first motion to
suppress and is incorporated herein by reference to the
extent necessary for background. Order Denying Motion to
Suppress, United States v. Jajuan Martinez Lewis, No.
12-20006 (Feb. 5, 2013) (Doc # 29).
7, 2017, Lewis filed the instant pro se Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, arguing that his Appellate Counsel was ineffective for
his failure to make the following arguments on appeal: (1)
the search warrant was issued without probable cause; (2) the
firearm should have been suppressed due to DTE Energy
unlawfully inspecting the energy meter outside Lewis's
home at the behest of the Detroit Police Department
(“DPD”); (3) the firearm should have been
suppressed due to the DPD officers entering Lewis's home
before they had a search warrant; (4) the case should have
been dismissed with prejudice for a speedy trial violation.
(Doc # 110, Pg ID 8-9) Lewis also argues that his Trial
Counsel was ineffective for the following reasons: (1) he
failed to argue that the seizure of the firearm exceeded the
scope of the warrant; (2) he did not object to the staleness
of the warrant; (3) he did not argue that the warrant was
based on false pretenses; and (4) he failed to cite the case
law that would have supported Lewis's sentence of home
confinement argument. (Doc # 110, Pg ID 14-23) The Government
filed a Response on September 27, 2017. (Doc # 117) Lewis
filed a Reply on October 25, 2017. (Doc # 121)
reasons set forth below, Lewis's Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
2255 authorizes a federal prisoner to move the district court
to vacate a sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Motions
brought under Section 2255 are subject to a one-year
limitations period established by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, generally running from
“the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes
final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(f)(1); Dunlap v.
United States, 250 F.3d 1001, 1004-05 (6th Cir. 2001).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Lewis's Motion
was timely filed.
prevail on a Section 2255 motion, the movant must show
“(1) an error of constitutional magnitude; (2) a
sentence imposed outside the statutory limits; or (3) an
error of fact or law that was so fundamental as to render the
entire proceeding invalid.” Weinberger v. United
States, 268 F.3d 346, 351 (6th Cir. 2001).
Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
argues that his Appellate Counsel was ineffective because he
failed to raise preserved meritorious claims that were
clearly stronger than those raised on appeal. (Doc # 110, Pg
ID 8-9) The Government responds that Lewis's argument
fails because Lewis's Appellate Counsel made a reasonable
decision to focus on the sufficiency of the evidence and
other issues at trial. (Doc # 117, Pg ID 12)
the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has a right to “have
the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const.
Amend. VI. A defendant has a right to “reasonably
effective assistance of counsel.” Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In
Strickland, the Supreme Court articulated a
two-prong test to show ineffective assistance of counsel:
“First, the defendant must show that counsel's
performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel
made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as
the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the
Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the
deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Id. “There is a strong presumption that legal
counsel is competent.” United States v.
Osterbrock, 891 F.2d 1216, 1220 (6th Cir. 1989). In
addition, a “reviewing court must give a highly
deferential scrutiny to counsel's performance.”
Ward v. United States, 995 F.2d 1317, 1321 (6th Cir.
1993). “The reasonableness of counsel's performance
is to be evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time
of the alleged error and in light of all the
circumstances.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477
U.S. 365, 384 (1986). A defendant is generally precluded from
arguing issues via a § 2255 motion that he failed to
raise on direct appeal unless he can first demonstrate either
cause, actual prejudice, or actual innocence. Bousley v.
U.S., 523 U.S. 614, ...