United States v. Bridges , 68 F. App'x 896 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JUN 19 2003
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,                        No. 02-3106
    v.                                          (D.C. Nos. 98-40068-01-DES and
    01-CV-3167-DES)
    BOBBY LEE BRIDGES,                                      (D. Kan.)
    Defendant - Appellant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before EBEL, KELLY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Bobby Lee Bridges pled guilty to three counts of a four-count
    indictment charging him with manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of
    
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    , and creating a substantial risk of harm to human life while
    manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 858
    . (ROA at Docs.
    *
    After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
    34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This
    Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
    the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
    cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    1, 131.) His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Bridges,
    No. 99-3167, 
    2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14376
     (10th Cir. June 21, 2000). He then
    filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    . The district court denied the motion and, finding that Petitioner had failed
    to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2), also denied Petitioner’s subsequent request for a Certificate
    of Appealability. (ROA at Doc. 165, p. 18; Doc. 172, p. 3.) Petitioner then
    appealed the denial of COA to this court. We granted COA on two issues: 1)
    Whether the government violated its plea agreement to recommend the low end of
    the appropriate Sentencing Guideline range, and 2) Whether Petitioner received
    ineffective assistance of counsel or whether Petitioner’s guilty plea was
    knowingly given based on Petitioner’s claim that his counsel misrepresented to
    him the substance of the plea agreement.
    Having reviewed the record, we find that Petitioner’s first claim—that the
    government violated the terms of its Plea Agreement—lacks merit. The written
    plea agreement between Petitioner and the Government, which was signed by both
    parties, clearly states:
    The government agrees to not oppose the defendant’s argument at
    sentencing that he should receive a sentence at the bottom end of the
    sentencing range to which he is assigned by the court after careful
    consideration of all applicable and relevant information presented to the
    court at the time of sentencing.
    -2-
    (Plea Agreement, § 4(f) (emphasis added).) Petitioner attempts to overcome the
    plain language of this plea agreement by relying on what he himself wrote in the
    Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty and Order Entering Plea that was subsequently
    entered by the district court. In that Petition, Petitioner wrote in the section
    listing the terms of the plea agreement that the “AUSA will recommend low end
    of appropriate guideline.” (Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty and Order Entering
    Plea, § 18.) That statement was obviously incorrect, given the clear terms of the
    plea agreement. Moreover, although the Government and Petitioner both signed
    the Plea Agreement, only Petitioner and the district court signed the Petition. The
    Government is not bound by the terms of an agreement that it never signed.
    Finally, any misunderstanding as to the terms of the plea agreement was
    clarified at sentencing. At one point, Petitioner’s attorney stated, “[O]ur plea
    agreement was that the Government would recommend the low end of the
    guidelines, which was the 140 months.” (Sent. Tr. at 10.) Asked by the court for
    its response, the Government stated,
    In Paragraph 4F of the plea agreement, the Government agreed not to
    oppose an argument by the Defendant that he should receive a sentence at
    the bottom end of the sentencing range to which he was assigned. The
    Government has not opposed any argument by the Defendant to that effect,
    and I believe we’ve satisfied the terms of the plea agreement in that regard.
    (Sent. Tr. at 11.) Neither Petitioner’s counsel nor the court responded to this
    statement or disputed it in any way. In sum, we conclude that the Government
    -3-
    honored its agreement with Petitioner and that this claim for relief must be
    denied.
    We now turn to the second issue on which we granted COA: Whether
    Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel or whether Petitioner’s guilty
    plea was knowingly given based on Petitioner’s claim that his counsel
    misrepresented the substance of the plea agreement. Petitioner’s argument to this
    effect has two parts. The first part goes to the aspect of the plea agreement that
    we discussed above: he argues that his attorney misinformed him about the
    substance of the plea agreement by failing to inform him that the Government
    agreed only that it would not oppose Petitioner’s request to be sentenced at the
    low end of the applicable guideline range, not that the Government would itself
    recommend sentencing at the low end. (Aplt. Br. at 8, 14.) The second part of
    Petitioner’s argument goes to the quantity of drugs that he was charged with and
    sentenced for possessing. He argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing
    to challenge the drug quantity that was listed in the indictment, and that his
    attorney persuaded him to stipulate to an incorrect drug quantity by assuring him
    that the quantity would be irrelevant to his sentence, which would not exceed 60
    months. (Id. at 14.) We address each of these arguments in turn.
    To prove that his trial counsel was ineffective, Petitioner must satisfy the
    two-part test established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466
    -4-
    U.S. 668 (1984). First, he must prove that his attorney’s “performance was
    deficient” and “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at
    687-88. “In applying this test, we give considerable deference to an attorney’s
    strategic decisions and ‘recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have
    rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of
    reasonable professional judgment.’” Bullock v. Carver, 
    297 F.3d 1036
    , 1044
    (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690). Second, Petitioner must
    prove that his counsel’s performance prejudiced him, “which requires a showing
    that there is ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,
    the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. (quoting Strickland,
    466 U.S. at 694).
    Turning to the first part of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance
    argument—that his attorney misinformed him about what kind of sentence the
    Government would recommend—we find that Petitioner has failed to show that
    his attorney’s performance was deficient. As discussed above, the Plea
    Agreement, which was signed by both Petitioner and his attorney and clarified by
    the Government in open court, clearly stated that the Government would not
    oppose any request by Petitioner that he be sentenced at the low end of the
    applicable Guideline range. The agreement did not state that the Government
    -5-
    would affirmatively recommend such a sentence. Petitioner’s argument to the
    contrary clearly lacks merit.
    The second part of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance argument goes to the
    quantity of methamphetamine for which he was found responsible, 100 grams.
    Petitioner alleges that he should have been held responsible for only 3.5 grams
    (the amount of an “eight ball”) and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to
    challenge that amount. (Aplt. Br. at 8-9, 14.) He also argues that his consent to
    the plea agreement was not knowing and voluntary because his attorney
    misinformed him as to the substance of the agreement. (Id. at 14.) We address
    and reject these claims in turn.
    We find no evidence in the record that the performance of Petitioner’s
    attorney with respect to the drug quantity “fell below an objective standard of
    reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. First, Petitioner himself admits
    that the Kansas Bureau of Investigation found that the amount of iodine seized
    from his meth lab was capable of producing 105 grams of actual
    methamphetamine. (Aplt. Br. at 5–6.) Other than his own unsupported criticism
    of that finding, he offers no evidence to rebut it. Second, we agree with the
    district court’s conclusion that “the agreement negotiated by counsel on behalf of
    defendant was remarkable under the circumstances.” (Memo. & Order at 11.) In
    exchange for Petitioner’s guilty plea, the Government agreed that it would:
    -6-
    (1) bring no further charges against defendant resulting from the activities
    that formed the basis of the indictment; (2) not file an information pursuant
    to 
    21 U.S.C. § 851
    , regarding defendant’s prior felony drug convictions; (3)
    recommend defendant receive a three level adjustment for acceptance and
    [sic] responsibility; (4) file a motion for downward departure if defendant
    provided substantial assistance pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (e); and (5) not oppose defendant’s argument at sentencing that he
    should receive a sentence at the bottom end of the appropriately calculated
    guideline range.
    (Memo. & Order at 2–3.) At sentencing, the court applied an offense level of 32
    and found that Petitioner had almost double the number of criminal history points
    (24) to place him in the criminal history category of VI. (Id. at 3–4.) The
    guideline range for that combination was 210 to 262 months of imprisonment, but
    the Government’s motion for a four-level downward departure reduced the range
    to between 140 and 175 months. (Id. at 4.) Had he rejected the plea agreement
    and gone to trial, he could have faced a sentence of more than 300 months. (Id. at
    13.) Petitioner was ultimately sentenced to 175 months. (Id.) This outcome,
    clearly favorable to Petitioner, did not result from any ineffectiveness on the part
    of his attorney. 1
    Petitioner makes the additional complaint that it was unfair for him to be
    1
    held responsible for 100 grams of methamphetamine and receive a 175-month
    sentence, while his co-defendant was held responsible for approximately 40 grams
    and sentenced to 60 months. (Aplt. Br. at 10.) The record does not make clear
    why this discrepancy existed, but at sentencing the Government explained it
    accordingly:
    ... I made a mistake on [the co-defendant], and I’ll be the first one to stand
    (continued...)
    -7-
    Petitioner also argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because
    his attorney misinformed him as to the substance of the agreement. Petitioner
    alleges that his attorney promised him that if he stipulated to the 100-gram
    amount, he would receive no more than a 60-month sentence. (Id. at 14.)
    Petitioner was ultimately sentenced to 175 months. We reject this argument
    because Petitioner’s own statements in the record indicate that his plea was
    knowing and voluntary.
    First, Petitioner signed the plea agreement, which contained a section
    stating that he was entering his plea “freely and voluntarily” and “with full
    understanding of all the matters set forth in the Indictment and in this petition,
    and in the certificate of my attorney which is attached to this petition.” (Pet. to
    1
    (...continued)
    up here and take my medicine, but I won’t go back on my word.... [T]o
    assert that because I made a mistake with [the co-defendant], that Mr.
    Bridges is also entitled to the fruits of my error, I just don’t see how that
    applies. Mr. Bridges has gotten—Mr. Bridges has gotten a heck of a deal
    on this case.
    (Sent. Tr. at 12.) The Government’s explanation appears plausible, but even
    without such an explanation, we have held that sentencing disparities resulting
    from different plea agreements by co-defendants are a legitimate exercise of
    prosecutorial discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Contreras, 
    108 F.3d 1255
    ,
    1272 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[E]ntering into plea bargains is within the United States
    Attorney’s prosecutorial discretion.... Moreover, allowing a defendant’s sentence
    to be reduced on account of a codefendant’s plea bargain may tend to discourage
    the government from offering plea bargains in cases involving multiple
    defendants.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    -8-
    Enter Plea at 6.) 2 Petitioner offers nothing except unsupported allegations to
    support his coercion argument; such arguments are insufficient to overcome
    Petitioner’s signature on a clear and lawful plea agreement. See Voytik v. United
    States, 
    778 F.2d 1306
    , 1309 (8th Cir. 1985) (noting that “vague allegations of
    impropriety and coercion fail to overcome the presumption of verity that attaches
    to the specific representations set forth” in the defendant’s petition to enter his
    guilty plea). Second, Petitioner himself admitted in his § 2255 brief to the district
    court that his plea was knowing and voluntary; his only complaint was that its
    terms were unfair:
    It is important to note that petitioner accepted a plea negotiation not to
    argue the drug quantity while under such agreement would bind petitioner
    to not argue the point at the sentencing stage. [sic] Petitioner knowingly
    and intelligently honored the agreement. Mr. Bridges does not challenged
    the plea; rather he challenges what similar placed defendant have
    questioned. How much quantity could petitioner produced?
    (ROA at Doc. 151, p. 4.) Third, Petitioner’s statements at sentencing demonstrate
    that he knew he was facing a 175-month sentence but do not contain even a hint
    of coercion:
    Your Honor, I’m guilty for what I’m accused of.... I’m still guilty of what
    I’m charged of and I made a mistake, a mistake I will probably regret for
    the rest of my life.... I made a mistake. But for that, you’re going to take
    my life away from me. How many people did I kill? 175 months. Your
    2
    We would customarily rely also on the transcript of a petitioner’s plea
    hearing, but it is not part of the record on appeal.
    -9-
    Honor, I’m 42 years old. By the time I get out, I won’t have any life.... All
    I’m asking for is a chance at life.
    (Sent. Tr. at 17–18.)
    In sum, Petitioner offers only bare allegations, unsupported by evidence, to
    suggest that his attorney misled him with respect to the terms of his plea
    agreement. Moreover, his own statements to the court, both oral and written,
    indicate that he understood the terms of his plea agreement. We therefore reject
    his argument that his plea was not knowing and voluntary.
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 3
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge
    3
    We also DENY Petitioner’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.
    - 10 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3106

Citation Numbers: 68 F. App'x 896

Judges: Ebel, Kelly, Murphy

Filed Date: 6/19/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024