United States v. Hawkins

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 13, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 10-6092
(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-00024-M-1)
RICHARD HAWKINS, (W.D. Okla.)
a/k/a “Lil Hoover,”
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Richard Hawkins pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
13 milliliters of PCP in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In his plea agreement,
he waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Despite the appeal
waiver, he has appealed. The government has moved to enforce the waiver. See
United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In
his response to the motion to enforce, Mr. Hawkins argues that the motion should
be denied because (1) the district court should have granted his motion to
withdraw his plea and (2) his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently
due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and that ineffective assistance resulted in
a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Hawkins’s ineffective assistance of counsel
arguments focus on (1) whether counsel informed him that he would
automatically be sentenced as a career offender if he pleaded guilty to possession
with intent to distribute and (2) whether counsel had obtained and informed
Mr. Hawkins of a lab report indicating that he possessed only .2 milliliters of PCP
at the time of his arrest. We grant the motion to enforce and dismiss this appeal.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hawkins was charged with four counts of possession with intent to
distribute crack cocaine, three counts of possession with intent to distribute PCP,
and two counts of use of a telephone to facilitate the purchase of PCP. In his
petition to enter a guilty plea, in his plea agreement, and at the change of plea
hearing, he indicated that he wanted to plead guilty to one count charging
possession with intent to distribute 13 milliliters of PCP on October 16, 2008, the
date of his arrest, and that he understood that he could be sentenced to twenty
years in prison. In the petition to enter a guilty plea, he indicated that he
understood that he could be sentenced as a career offender. In his plea
agreement, he stated that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal
(1) his guilty plea; (2) his sentence, if it was within or below the guidelines range
determined to be applicable by the court; and (3) any other aspect of his
conviction.
-2-
At a hearing on the presentence report, Mr. Hawkins again admitted under
oath having 13 milliliters of PCP and acknowledged that his attorney, Mr. Don
Gutteridge, told him about possible sentencing as a career criminal. Mr. Hawkins
believed, based on discussions with Mr. Gutteridge, that a career offender
sentence would be for only five to ten years of imprisonment. The district court
continued the hearing to a later date.
At the resumed hearing, Mr. Hawkins, who was under oath, asked the court
to excuse Mr. Gutteridge because Mr. Gutteridge had not been present for the
Rule 11 conference at the prosecutor’s office, had misled him concerning the
amount of time he would serve in prison by entering the plea, and did not fully
explain the plea agreement or his possible sentence if he pleaded guilty to one or
more counts of possession with intent to distribute. Additionally, Mr. Hawkins
stated that he pleaded guilty because Mr. Gutteridge had shown him in the
guidelines what sentence he could get as a career criminal and it was five to ten
years of imprisonment, not 151 to 188 months as indicated by the presentence
report. Finally, Mr. Hawkins told the court that he did not actually possess
13 milliliters of PCP, because the lab report showed that he had only .2 milliliters
at the time of his arrest. Based on Mr. Hawkins’s displeasure with his
representation, Mr. Gutteridge orally moved to withdraw. The district court
granted the motion.
-3-
New counsel, Jack Fisher, was appointed. Mr. Hawkins moved to withdraw
his guilty plea as not entered knowingly and voluntarily. He asserted that he
received incorrect advise from Mr. Gutteridge, including counsel’s failure to
inform him that (1) he automatically qualified for the career offender
enhancement by pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute and (2) the
lab report showed only .2 milliliters of PCP. The district court denied the motion.
First, the court found that Mr. Hawkins did not make a credible claim of legal
innocence, because the drug quantity was not an essential element of the offense.
Next, the court found that a miscalculation of sentence by Mr. Gutteridge was not
deficient performance and that Mr. Hawkins did not suffer prejudice from the
inaccurate sentence prediction because he had acknowledged in the plea
agreement and at the plea hearing that the court had sole discretion to determine
the sentence. Finding no ineffective assistance by Mr. Gutteridge, the court also
found that Mr. Hawkins’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
After the district court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, the case
proceeded to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, a government witness
testified about Mr. Hawkins’s sale of crack cocaine and PCP. Mr. Fisher
acknowledged Mr. Hawkins’s extensive criminal history, but felt that based on
the amount of PCP actually at issue, only .2 milliliters, Mr. Hawkins should not
have pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute, because by doing so he
automatically qualified as a career offender. After specifying the guidelines
-4-
range as 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment due to Mr. Hawkins’s status as a
career criminal, the district court sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment.
HAHN ANALYSIS
In determining whether to dismiss an appeal based on a waiver of appellate
rights, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the
waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in
a miscarriage of justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325.
Scope of Appeal Waiver
Mr. Hawkins does not specifically contest the fact that this appeal is within
the scope of the waiver of his appellate rights, and his attempt to challenge the
district court’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his plea does fall within the
scope of the waiver. See United States v. Leon, 476 F.3d 829, 832 (10th Cir.
2007) (“An appeal of a denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is an attempt
to contest a conviction on appeal and thus falls within the plain language of an
appeal waiver provision.” (quotation marks omitted) (alterations omitted)).
Knowing and Voluntary Waiver and Miscarriage of Justice
Mr. Hawkins contends that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary
because Mr. Gutteridge provided ineffective assistance of counsel in the
negotiation of the appeal waiver, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
-5-
Mr. Hawkins states, and we agree, that the last two prongs of the Hahn test are
intertwined.
Mr. Hawkins asserts two separate arguments that his guilty plea was not
knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, thereby resulting
in a miscarriage of justice. First, he argues that Mr. Gutteridge did not explain to
him that if he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute he would
automatically be treated as a career offender based on his prior criminal history.
Mr. Hawkins contends that Mr. Gutteridge did not understand the mechanics of
the guidelines with respect to the career offender provision and therefore
affirmatively misled Mr. Hawkins to believe that there was a chance he would not
qualify as a career offender.
Second, Mr. Hawkins argues that Mr. Gutteridge failed to obtain and
inform him of the lab report showing that he actually possessed .2 milliliters of
PCP instead of 13 milliliters at the time of his arrest. Mr. Hawkins contends that
because possession of .2 milliliters could not support a finding that he had the
intent to distribute, he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter a guilty plea. He
acknowledges admitting that he possessed 13 milliliters of PCP with intent to
distribute, but he contends that this was a mistake because he was intoxicated at
the time of his arrest, he did not know how much PCP he had at the time of the
arrest, and Mr. Gutteridge did not inform him of the correct amount before
-6-
negotiating the plea agreement. Thus, Mr. Hawkins contends that he made the
admission based on Mr. Gutteridge’s inadequate advice.
As indicated above, Mr. Hawkins’s unknowing and involuntary and his
miscarriage of justice arguments are intertwined. His arguments, which are based
only on ineffective assistance of counsel, are not barred by the appeal waiver,
because they implicate the narrow exception recognized in Hahn, and make the
required connection between the ineffective assistance of counsel and the
acceptance of the plea agreement and appeal waiver. See Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327(recognizing four possible scenarios for miscarriage of justice, including
ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with negotiation of appellate
waiver).
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim, however, must ordinarily be
raised in a collateral 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Porter,
405 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that this rule applies even where
defendant seeks to invalidate appellate waiver based on ineffective assistance of
counsel). Mr. Hawkins suggests, without elaboration, that this is one of the rare
cases where the ineffective assistance of counsel claim needs no further
development.
As indicated above, the district court held a hearing to determine whether
Mr. Gutteridge should be permitted to withdraw. But it was not a full evidentiary
hearing, it did not specifically address the test for ineffective assistance of
-7-
counsel, and it did not resolve the questions presented now. Although the district
court did consider some of Mr. Hawkins’s complaints about Mr. Gutteridge’s
performance, we cannot conclude that there has been sufficient development of
the record to overcome the general rule that ineffective assistance of counsel
claims typically should be raised in collateral proceedings. Thus, if Mr. Hawkins
chooses to pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, he must do so
under § 2255.
Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion to enforce and
DISMISS this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-8-