United States v. Shields
2:16-cr-00012
E.D. Wash.May 16, 2024Background
- Forest Jacob Shields pled guilty in 2016 to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
- As part of his plea agreement, Shields waived his right to file any post-conviction motion, including under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on unknown information.
- His Presentence Investigative Report placed Shields in Criminal History Category VI, with 32 criminal history points, resulting in a guideline range of 151-188 months plus a mandatory 5-year consecutive sentence for the firearm charge.
- On May 15, 2024, Shields filed a pro se § 2255 motion, arguing that some of his prior convictions were unconstitutional under State v. Blake.
- The court reviewed the motion without requiring a government response, as the pleadings and record were deemed conclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of post-conviction rights | Shields waived right except for IAC claims | Waiver should not bar claim regarding prior convictions | Waiver is enforceable; motion barred |
| Timeliness under § 2255(f) | Motion filed outside one-year limitation | Court should allow late filing due to Blake decision | Motion untimely; Blake decided >1 year ago |
| Effect of prior state drug convictions on federal sentence | No relief warranted even if prior vacated | Sentencing overstated by unconstitutional drug possession priors | Criminal history points would remain high; no relief |
| Certificate of Appealability | Not addressed | Implied request to appeal adverse decision | Denied; no substantial showing of right |
Key Cases Cited
- Davies v. Benov, 856 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard for enforcement of appeal and collateral attack waivers in plea agreements)
- Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295 (2005) (one-year limitation period for § 2255 starts upon notice of a state court order vacating prior conviction, if sought with due diligence)
- United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780 (1979) (relief under § 2255 warranted only for fundamental defects causing miscarriage of justice)
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (not all sentencing errors are within scope of § 2255 relief)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (1962) (scope of relief under § 2255 is limited)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing certificate of appealability)