Wallace v. United States

Background

The court had previously denied Timmy Wallace’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Wallace then moved for reconsideration, arguing that the January 5, 2021 order misunderstood his claims and relied on clearly erroneous factual findings. Although the motion was filed after the 14-day deadline in the local rule, the court considered it because Wallace was representing himself.

Rehaif and procedural default

Wallace argued that his conviction should be overturned under Rehaif v. United States because the indictment did not allege that he knew he had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, and the jury was not instructed that he had to know he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. The court had previously concluded that this claim was procedurally defaulted because Wallace had not raised it on direct appeal. The court assumed for purposes of its analysis that Wallace might establish a legally sufficient reason for that failure, but concluded that he had not shown the required prejudice—meaning that the alleged error caused actual and substantial harm.

The court rejected Wallace’s argument that it had improperly relied on speculation. It concluded that his indictment adequately tracked the firearm statute. The court also relied on Wallace’s three prior felony convictions, each resulting in more than one year of imprisonment, and on his stipulation that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year. The court further stated that Wallace’s earlier guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm necessarily showed that he knew he had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year. The court therefore again concluded that Wallace had not shown the prejudice required for relief under § 2255.

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel

Wallace argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to obtain a DNA expert, failing to call the DNA-swabbing technician, failing to consult him before agreeing to certain stipulations, and conceding some elements of the charged offense.

The court found that Wallace had not shown either that his lawyer’s performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard or that the alleged errors changed the trial’s result. It determined that declining to call a DNA expert was a reasonable strategic decision because the proposed defense appeared weak and could have opened the door to statements Wallace made during a government proffer session. The court also found that Wallace had not provided evidence beyond the existing record to support his claim that he did not consent to certain stipulations. It noted that the lawyers said they had discussed the stipulations with Wallace and that agreeing to some facts, including prior convictions, could have served strategic purposes.

Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel

Wallace also sought reconsideration of the ruling on his appellate-counsel claim, but the court found that he had identified no misunderstood fact or error in the earlier order. The court concluded that appellate counsel could choose among possible arguments and acted within the range of professionally reasonable assistance by pursuing issues other than the Rehaif argument.

Disposition

The court denied Wallace’s motion to reconsider the January 5, 2021 order and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the opinion and order on July 29, 2021.