Doan v. United States
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69872
| E.D. Va. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Doan pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine/MDMA and marijuana and to possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).
- He was sentenced on March 9, 2007, to 210 months, later reduced to 158 months on September 14, 2007, via Rule 35(b).
- Doan did not file a direct appeal; he filed a § 2255 petition on September 18, 2008, with a later supplement attempting to invoke Padilla.
- The government argued the petition was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)’s one-year limit running from final judgment.
- Doan argued Padilla should be applied retroactively; the court must determine retroactivity and any tolling in light of Teague.
- The court concluded Padilla is not retroactive and denied the § 2255 motion, while noting a supplemental inquiry may proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padilla applies retroactively under Teague. | Doan argues Padilla applies retroactively to his case. | United States contends Padilla is not retroactive on collateral review. | Padilla not retroactive under Teague framework. |
| Whether Padilla is an old rule or within Teague exceptions. | Padilla should be treated as old/new rule with retroactive effect. | Padilla is a new rule not fitting Teague exceptions. | Padilla deemed a new rule, not applicable retroactively under Teague. |
| Whether the petition is time-barred and whether equitable tolling applies. | Equitable tolling or other patience excuses could render timely the petition. | Petition filed well outside the one-year period; no extraordinary tolling shown. | Rule 2255 petition untimely; no equitable tolling warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (per se ineffective assistance for failing to advise on deportation consequences)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new criminal-procedure rules on collateral review)
- Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (2004) (watershed-rule exception limited to central, ordered-liberty procedures)
- Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461 (1993) (limits of watershed exception to ensure accuracy and fairness)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (example of a watershed rule altering fundamental fairness)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (exceptions to new-rule retroactivity for conduct range or class of punishment)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003) (finality and computation of the § 2255 filing deadline)
- O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997) (perspective on Teague framework and collateral review)
- United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 2005) (assessing whether new rules were unreasonable at time of conviction)
- Sosa v. United States, 364 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 2004) (evidentiary and tolling considerations in collateral challenges)