United States v. Jones
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2630
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- DEA surveillance of an apartment in Fall River, MA, led to controlled buys involving Byron Jones and Meaghan Murphy and showed crack sales and cooking/packaging on-site; a search recovered over 600 g crack, ~500 g powder cocaine, and drug-trafficking paraphernalia.
- Jones was indicted on conspiracy and multiple distribution counts; he initially had court-appointed counsel, moved for substitute counsel several times, and at one point proceeded pro se for a suppression motion before reinstating counsel.
- After a suppression motion was denied, Jones pleaded guilty to all counts pursuant to a plea agreement that removed a §851 enhancement.
- The PSR and district court applied a two-level "stash house" enhancement (USSG §2D1.1(b)(12)) and added two criminal-history points for committing the offense while on supervised release, raising Jones’s GSR to 135–168 months.
- The district court sentenced Jones to 135 months; he appealed, raising challenges to the plea colloquy, the stash-house enhancement, the added criminal-history points, and several Faretta/representation-related claims (including denial of counsel substitution and waiver validity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of guilty plea under Rule 11 | Govt: plea was knowing and voluntary after indictment reading, factual recitation, and colloquy. | Jones: court failed to explain elements, conspiracy scope, and technical terms; thus plea not knowing/voluntary. | Affirmed — colloquy sufficed given simple charges, defendant's education, prior convictions, and agreement; no plain error. |
| 2. Stash-house enhancement (USSG §2D1.1(b)(12)) | Govt: Jones exercised dominion/control and principal use of premises was drug distribution (keys, access, clothes, surveillance, large drugs/paraphernalia). | Jones: he neither owned/rented nor exclusively controlled the apartment; it was a residence too; Murphy was not enhanced so disparity exists. | Affirmed — enhancement proper based on dominion/control and primary use; ownership/exclusivity not required; differential treatment of Murphy justified by record. |
| 3. Two added criminal-history points (§4A1.1(d)) | Govt: conspiracy spanned from at least Nov 2011; Jones pled guilty to conspiracy covering that period while on supervised release. | Jones: unlawful conduct began Dec 15, 2011, after supervised release ended, so points improper. | Affirmed — guilty plea admitted participation from November 2011, so offense occurred while on supervised release; points warranted. |
| 4. Faretta waiver, denial of counsel substitution, and ineffective-assistance claim | Govt: court adequately inquired and warned; waiver knowing; motion to withdraw properly denied; ineffective-assistance claims are collateral (§2255) issues. | Jones: waiver invalid, counsel should have been replaced, counsel ineffective forcing self-representation/plea. | Affirmed as to waiver and denial of withdrawal — waiver knowing/intelligent and denial not abuse of discretion; ineffective-assistance claims dismissed without prejudice to §2255 collateral attack. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (plain-error review of unpreserved Rule 11 challenges)
- Ramos-Mejía v. United States, 721 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2013) (Rule 11 adequacy evaluated by defendant attributes and offense complexity)
- Paneto v. United States, 661 F.3d 709 (1st Cir. 2011) (preponderance standard and review framework for guideline enhancements)
- Flores-Olague v. United States, 717 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2013) (interpreting stash-house enhancement in light of §856 case law)
- Verners v. United States, 53 F.3d 291 (10th Cir. 1995) (maintenance and use factors for stash/keep premises convictions)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)