Davis v. United States

Background

In January 2005, Raheem Davis and three other people agreed to rob a marijuana dealer. According to the order, Davis and two others entered the dealer’s apartment and took drugs and money. Davis then fired an automatic weapon, killing the dealer, wounding the woman living with him, and permanently crippling her son.

A jury convicted Davis of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and of firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The court sentenced him principally to concurrent terms of 20 years and life imprisonment, both consecutive to an earlier, unexpired prison term. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Davis later filed several motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal law allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence.

Latest Motion

The court had denied Davis’s previous § 2255 motion on January 19, 2023. Davis then sent a letter seeking to supplement that motion. The court treated the letter as a new § 2255 motion and initially transferred it to the Court of Appeals as a successive motion. The Court of Appeals later returned it for consideration because it viewed the letter as containing claims that were not successive. The district court stated that Davis had not alleged, and the court was not aware of, newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional-law rule that would otherwise make the motion non-successive. The court nevertheless considered the motion in accordance with the Court of Appeals’ direction.

Davis asserted that he did not receive a fair trial because he was shackled, was not allowed to present a defense or call witnesses, and was denied the ability to represent himself.

Court’s Analysis

The court acknowledged that Davis had been shackled and that his attempt to represent himself had been denied. It ruled that both claims were procedurally barred because Davis could have raised them on direct appeal but did not. The court also stated that Davis was not prejudiced by either issue.

The court found Davis’s claim about being denied the right to call witnesses unclear. His citation to the trial record did not identify the witnesses or otherwise clarify the claim, so the court said it could deny the claim independently because it was vague and unsupported.

The court considered that Davis might have been referring to the exclusion of a “drug specialist” who would have testified about whether marijuana is a narcotic. The court ruled that any challenge to that decision was also procedurally barred because Davis could have raised it on direct appeal. The court further noted that it had previously explained why such testimony was unnecessary.

The court also considered whether Davis meant that his trial lawyer could not locate some requested witnesses and chose not to call the few who were located. To the extent Davis challenged this as a court error, the claim was procedurally barred. To the extent he asserted ineffective assistance of counsel—meaning that his lawyer performed unreasonably and thereby caused prejudice—the court found no evidence supporting either requirement. It concluded that counsel’s decision was tactical and within counsel’s authority.

Disposition

The court denied Davis’s latest § 2255 motion in all respects. It denied a certificate of appealability, which is a document generally required to appeal the denial of a federal post-conviction motion, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.