United States v. Jesse Williams III
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10145
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Williams was indicted April 15, 2010 for cocaine distribution and related offenses; search at his Lansing residence yielded cocaine, cash, and a firearm.
- He was arrested July 10, 2010; state charges were filed and later dismissed; he remained in state custody and then under federal custody beginning March 2011.
- Three attorneys were appointed for Williams due to conflicts; Dunn replaced Tilton, then Mitchell was appointed, and motions and continuances followed.
- A five-count superseding indictment was filed June 9, 2011; Williams was arraigned on June 27, 2011; trial ultimately began March 6, 2012.
- Williams was convicted on Counts One, Two, and Four of the superseding indictment; he was sentenced August 20, 2012 as a career offender to 360 months.
- On appeal, Williams challenges Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims, Speedy Trial Act delays, ineffective assistance, and the career-offender designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation under Sixth Amendment | Williams argues 690-day delay violated speedy-trial rights. | The delay attributable to defense and non-custodial periods should not count against government. | No Sixth Amendment violation; delay not blameworthy by government and not prejudicial. |
| Speedy Trial Act compliance | Delay violated 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) and ends-of-justice continuance not properly justified. | District court properly granted ends-of-justice continuance to allow defense preparation. | Continued delay approved; ends-of-justice continuance proper and adequately justified. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to sever co-defendant and failed to file motions; sought further continuances. | Record inadequate to assess; no conclusive showing of deficient performance without an evidentiary hearing. | No direct ineffective-assistance ruling on direct appeal; requires §2255 notwithstanding record limitations. |
| Career-offender classification | Fleeing-and-eluding conviction should not count separately to meet § 4B1.1(a). | Each prior conviction counts; § 4A1.2(a)(2) does not flawfully graft non-predicate sentences. | Williams properly sentenced as a career offender; two qualifying predicates counted separately; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four Barker factors to assess speedy-trial claim)
- Schreane, 331 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2003) (government versus defendant blame for delay; procurement in multi-jurisdiction cases)
- Mundt, 29 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 1994) (presumptive prejudice when delay is long; prejudice analysis varies with delay and reason)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (U.S. 2006) (needs for reasons for ends-of-justice continuances be in the record)
- Howard, 218 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for ends-of-justice continuances)
- Stewart, 628 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 2010) (speedy-trial clock and defendant consent to continuance)
- King v. United States, 595 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2010) (rule of lenity applied to ambiguous § 4A1.2 readings in career-offender analysis)