Hawkins v. USA - 2255 ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Crim. Action No. CCB-06-0583 Civil Action No. CCB-20-1788 COLLIN HAWKINS. MEMORANDUM Now pending in this motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the claim by inmate Collin Hawkins that he was improperly convicted in February 2008 of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Mot. to Vacate, ECF 135, as supplemented, ECF 136, and amended, ECF 138.1 The government has opposed the motion. Opp’n to Mot. to Vacate, ECF 145. Hawkins claims that his conviction under Section 922(g) is invalid after the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), because (1) the indictment did not allege that Hawkins knew of his prohibited status; (2) the government failed to provide evidence at trial showing Hawkins knew of his prohibited status; and (3) the jury was not instructed that the government had to prove Hawkins knew his status as a convicted felon, i.e., that he knew he had previously been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison. This argument is procedurally defaulted, however, because it was not raised on direct appeal, and in any event the Court’s subsequent decision in Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503 (2021), would be fatal to Hawkins’s claim. 1 Hawkins initially was convicted of several related counts, but after an appeal to the Fourth Circuit resulted in two counts being overturned and after Hawkins received a subsequent conviction for participating in a prison riot, the government elected not to retry the other counts. A claim that could have been but was not raised on direct appeal ordinarily is procedurally defaulted, unless the petitioner can show cause and prejudice or actual innocence. United States v. Fugit, 703 F.3d 248, 253-54 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998)). Hawkins has shown nothing sufficient to overcome the procedural default bar or to show that his Rehaif claims would survive harmless error review. Hawkins stipulated to his status as a person who had been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison. Trial Tr. vol. 1 at 11:2-10; 16:9-23, 19:13-22, ECF 52; Trial Tr. vol. 3 at 14:1-9, 65:24-66:4, ECF 54. Further it is clear from the criminal history in the Presentence Report, see Presentence Report ¶ 29, ECF 145-1, and the requirement under Maryland law for the defendant to be informed of the maximum penalties for the crimes he was charged with, see Bryant v. State, 47 Md. App. 551, 555-56 (1981), that the government could have proved Hawkins’s knowledge of his status. Nor did Hawkins proffer any evidence to show a reasonable probability that, had the jury been correctly instructed, he would have been acquitted. See Greer, 539 U.S. at 508. For these reasons, Hawkins’s motion to vacate, as supplemented and amended, will be denied. A separate Order follows. 3/15/2024 /s/ Date Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge