Jones v. United States
14 F. Supp. 3d 811
W.D. Tex.2014Background
- Jones was charged by one-count indictment on Sep 20, 2011 for manufacturing and possession with intent to manufacture 100+ marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) with a 5–40 year statutory range.
- Jones pled guilty on Sep 6, 2012 and the court accepted the plea on Nov 17, 2012, imposing 26 months' imprisonment and 4 years' supervised release.
- The sentence fell below the statutory minimum due to § 3553(f)(1)–(5) and U.S.S.G. § 5B1.2(a), with a guideline range of 24–30 months, at the low end per the plea agreement.
- On Aug 5, 2013, Jones filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not researching an suppression issue regarding a dog sniff; Jardines was pending at the time of his arrest and sentencing.
- The court denied the motion, ruling (i) probable cause existed independent of the dog sniff, and (ii) the good faith exception applied; a certificate of appealability was granted.
- Conclusion: the § 2255 motion is DENIED and a COA is GRANTED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion about the dog sniff? | Jones | Jones | No; probable cause existed without the sniff and good faith cured any issue. |
| Did Jardines control whether the dog sniff was a search and thus require suppression? | Jones | Jones | Good faith applied; the evidence would not be suppressed. |
| Did the dog sniff prejudice Jones? | Jones | Jones | No; motion would have been denied. |
| Should the Court grant a certificate of appealability? | Jones | Government | Yes; reasonable jurists could debate the constitutional claims and procedural rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Placente, 81 F.3d 555 (5th Cir.1996) (standard for § 2255 review; limits on non-constitutional errors)
- United States v. Stumpf, 900 F.2d 842 (5th Cir.1990) (limits on collateral review for non-constitutional errors)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104 (5th Cir.2006) (Franks/false statement framework for warrant challenges)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause standard for warrants)
- United States v. Payne, 341 F.3d 393 (5th Cir.2003) (probable cause and warrant analysis framework)
- United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706 (5th Cir.2002) (probable cause and warrant standards)
- United States v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir.1991) (probable cause and warrant considerations)
- United States v. Webster, 750 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.1984) (general warrant issuance standards; deference to magistrate’s finding)
- United States v. Alvarez, 127 F.3d 372 (5th Cir.1997) (exclusionary rule considerations; Franks framework)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (supreme framework for probable cause analysis)