Johnson, Dietrick Lewis Sr.
WR-83,532-01
| Tex. | Nov 6, 2015Background
- Dietrick L. Johnson pled guilty in federal court (August 2012 plea) to Count 1 (carjacking) of a superseding indictment; federal Counts 2–3 (firearm offenses) were to be dismissed as part of negotiations. He was later sentenced to federal prison (November 15, 2013).
- Johnson sought to withdraw his federal plea after learning the parallel Texas state prosecutor had obtained and entered the federal plea agreement into the state record and used it as leverage in state plea negotiations. Magistrate Judge Mazzant initially recommended allowing withdrawal, but the district judge denied the motion.
- Johnson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition (filed July 23, 2014) raising six principal claims and the district court denied relief (July 29, 2015); he then applied for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to the Fifth Circuit.
- Core claims: (1) guilty plea was not knowing/voluntary due to prosecutorial misconduct and fraud; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and appellate counsel failed to investigate, preserve, and present key claims); (3) conflict of interest arising from a collateral‑attack waiver in the plea; (4) Rule 11/competency violations (court failed to inquire about prescribed medication/competency); (5) indictment invalid because grand jury term expired and resulting prejudice; (6) denial of discovery and request for remand for evidentiary development.
- Johnson alleges government and state prosecutors submitted false/perjured declarations (March 18, 2013) certifying the state would not use the federal plea, and that the government breached the plea bargain by treating the plea and related PSR adjustments as admitting firearms use and bodily injury not in the plea. He seeks COA, vacatur, new trial or resentencing, and a remand for discovery/evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of guilty plea — knowing and voluntary | Plea involuntary because counsel failed to advise consequences for parallel state case; prosecutors and state DA used plea as confession and submitted false declarations to block withdrawal | Government maintains plea was valid and that Johnson was not charged with weapon use in Count 1; rejects claims of misuse/perjury | District court denied §2255 relief and refused to grant COA (case file shows denial below); appeal seeks COA to litigate merits |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel (trial & appellate) | Counsel failed to investigate/suppress allegedly illegally obtained firearm, failed to subpoena phone records/witnesses, encouraged plea despite clear Fourth Amendment and other defenses; appellate counsel filed Anders brief | Government asserts counsel representation was adequate and issues are meritless or waived by plea | District court rejected ineffective assistance claims (denied §2255); Johnson requests COA to permit appellate review |
| 3. Conflict of interest from collateral‑attack waiver | Collateral‑attack waiver in plea created a non‑waivable conflict that prevented counsel from advising properly; conflict invalidates plea | Government enforces waiver and contends it bars collateral challenges | District court denied relief; Johnson argues COA should issue because conflict undermines waiver validity |
| 4. Rule 11 / competency inquiry | Judge failed to inquire about prescribed medications (Johnson was taking Zoloft) and competency; Rule 11 mandates personal inquiry and competency hearing when concerns arise | Government contends Rule 11 requirements satisfied and no competency indicators warranted a hearing | District court denied §2255 relief; Johnson seeks COA to develop competency record and claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaitan, 954 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir.) (plea validity and waiver considerations)
- United States v. Pearson, 910 F.2d 221 (5th Cir.) (standards for plea voluntariness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (plea cases and prejudice analysis under Strickland)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for COA and reviewability)
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (right to competency hearing)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (competency standards and duty to inquire)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (right to conflict‑free counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict of interest rule where prejudice may be presumed)
(Note: this summary synthesizes the pro se appellant’s COA application and §2255 brief as reflected in the provided record. The district court denied relief and a COA below; the Fifth Circuit filing seeks COA to permit appellate review of the listed claims.)