Johnson v. United States

Background

Anthony C. Johnson filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence. He challenged his 121-month prison sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to conspiring to commit sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c), and failing to register or update a registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250.

Johnson alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. His five grounds were that counsel failed to obtain or show him discovery materials; failed to challenge the sentencing-guidelines calculations and base offense level; failed to seek a three-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b)(2); prevented him from going to trial; and gave poor advice and coerced him into accepting the plea agreement. Johnson also requested an evidentiary hearing.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: Johnson had to show both that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him. In the guilty-plea context, prejudice required a reasonable probability that, without counsel’s errors, Johnson would have rejected the plea and insisted on going to trial.

For the discovery claim, the court held that Johnson’s plea agreement waived challenges based on the Government’s failure to provide discovery, exculpatory evidence, or impeachment material, except for information establishing factual innocence. The court stated that the waiver was enforceable because Johnson entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily. To the extent Johnson instead claimed that counsel failed to show him materials counsel possessed, the court found that he did not identify specific evidence that had been withheld. The court also found that the Facebook message Johnson identified was known to him before the plea, was not favorable evidence of the type covered by the cited disclosure rules, and did not establish prejudice.

The court rejected Johnson’s sentencing claims because he had raised the same arguments during his direct appeal and the Court of Appeals had rejected them. The court applied the rule barring relitigation of issues already decided on direct appeal.

The court also rejected Johnson’s claims that counsel coerced him into pleading guilty or prevented him from going to trial. The documents Johnson submitted showed discussions about the charges, possible defenses, and plea terms, but did not demonstrate coercion. The court relied particularly on Johnson’s sworn statements during the plea hearing that he was satisfied with counsel, understood that he was giving up his right to a trial, had received no improper threats or promises, and was pleading guilty voluntarily. The court further noted that the plea agreement allowed Johnson to avoid additional charges in another case and resulted in a sentence at the bottom of the stipulated guidelines range.

Disposition

The court concluded that the record conclusively showed Johnson was not entitled to relief. It denied Johnson’s § 2255 petition in its entirety and denied his request for an evidentiary hearing. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Johnson had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.