Johnson, Dietrick Lewis Sr.
WR-83,532-01
Tex. App.Aug 3, 2015Background
- Defendant Dietrick L. Johnson Sr. pleaded guilty in federal court (18 U.S.C. § 2119 carjacking; plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)) and later sought to withdraw his plea and to vacate his § 924(c) conviction via post‑plea motions and a § 2255 petition.
- Johnson alleges a warrantless, nonconsensual March 26, 2012 search and seizure of his parked, locked vehicle by U.S. Marshals that produced a firearm and other items; he contends no signed warrant or written consent exists.
- Johnson contends prosecutors suppressed exculpatory METRO PCS phone records and other evidence (Brady claim) that would show the complainant’s statements and grand‑jury testimony were false or perjured.
- He asserts multiple ineffective‑assistance claims: failure to investigate/obtain phone records and receipts, failure to file timely suppression motions, coercion or misinformation regarding the consequences of a federal plea (including that it could be used in parallel state proceedings), and failure to test competency/medication effects.
- Magistrate Judge Mazzant recommended granting Johnson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Johnson said he was not informed that the federal plea could be used in the parallel state case; the district judge (Crone) reviewed objections, accepted the state’s later certification that it would not use the federal plea in its case‑in‑chief, found the error harmless, and denied the motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of search/seizure (Fourth Amendment) | Search of parked, locked vehicle was warrantless and without consent; fruits (firearm) should be excluded | Government relied on evidence recovered and indicted; search justified or consent existed | District court record reflects the search dispute but no definitive suppression ruling in the adoption opinion; Johnson preserved claim in §2255 filings (not resolved in adoption order) |
| Brady/suppression of phone records | Prosecutors subpoenaed but suppressed METRO PCS records and texts that would exculpate Johnson and impeach complainant | Government maintained compliance or later produced materials; contested materiality | Court found suppression allegations central to Johnson’s motion to withdraw plea; ultimate denial of withdrawal rested on state’s certification (no full Brady adjudication in adopted opinion) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/file motions) | Counsel failed to obtain phone records, receipts, SIM card, expert reports, and failed to move to suppress or timely litigate discovery | Government contended counsel’s performance was adequate and plea was voluntary; disputed facts and credibility | Claims were raised in §2255; Magistrate recommended withdrawal based on plea voluntariness issues, but the district court denied withdrawal after state’s stipulation; no merits resolution of all IAC claims in the adopted memorandum |
| Validity/voluntariness of guilty plea and withdraw motion | Johnson says he did not know a federal plea could be used against him in state court and would not have pled if he had known; seeks to withdraw plea | Government argued plea colloquy and counsel advisals showed plea knowing/voluntary; later certified state would not use plea in case‑in‑chief | Magistrate recommended allowing withdrawal (found fair and just reason). District judge adopted report in part, found error harmless after state certified it would not use the federal plea in its case‑in‑chief, and DENIED the motion to withdraw plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence affecting witness credibility)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (standards for plea voluntariness)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) (right to counsel and conflicts affecting assistance)
- Burdine v. Johnson, 292 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001) (counsel absence or prevention during critical stage can require reversal)
- United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1984) (factors for evaluating motions to withdraw guilty plea)