Wakefield v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
3:17-cv-00683
M.D. Ala.Jun 4, 2019Background
- Petitioner John Eric Wakefield pled guilty in 2014 to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2) and to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- The district court sentenced him to 180 months (120 months drug count + consecutive 60 months firearm count) on November 23, 2015; judgment entered December 7, 2015. Wakefield did not appeal.
- The Government moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance; on April 12, 2017 the court reduced Wakefield’s drug-count term by 12 months, making total custody 168 months.
- Wakefield filed a pro se § 2255 motion on October 10, 2017 asserting ineffective assistance (conflict of interest due to counsel’s joint representation), that his plea was involuntary/unknowing, and counsel failed to investigate.
- The Magistrate Judge found Wakefield’s § 2255 motion untimely under AEDPA’s one-year limitation (28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)), reasoning the conviction became final on December 21, 2015 (14 days after judgment) and a Rule 35(b) reduction does not restart the § 2255 clock.
- The court also found that Wakefield knew of counsel’s joint representation and waived any conflict on the record when he pled, so § 2255(f)(4) did not apply; equitable tolling was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Wakefield’s § 2255 timely under AEDPA? | Wakefield contends the § 2255 clock began on April 12, 2017 (date of Rule 35 reduction) because he only then discovered counsel’s conflict. | Judgment became final Dec. 21, 2015; Rule 35(b) reduction does not restart the limitations period. | The motion is untimely; finality date is Dec. 21, 2015 and § 2255 filed Oct. 10, 2017 is time-barred. |
| Does a Rule 35(b) reduction restart § 2255(f) limitations? | Implied: reduction materially changed sentence so clock should restart. | Statutory text and precedent hold Rule 35(b) modifies sentence but does not affect finality of judgment for other purposes, including AEDPA. | Rule 35(b) reduction does not affect finality; it does not restart AEDPA clock. |
| Does § 2255(f)(4) apply because Wakefield discovered counsel’s conflict only at Rule 35 time? | Wakefield claims he learned the conflict and its effect on cooperation when he got a smaller Rule 35 reduction than expected. | Records show Wakefield knew of joint representation at plea and waived any conflict on the record; the alleged factual predicate was known at plea. | § 2255(f)(4) inapplicable; triggering facts were known when he pled guilty. |
| Is equitable tolling available? | (Implicit) Wakefield could argue delay was excusable. | Wakefield did not act with diligence after learning of the alleged conflict; he failed to meet burden for extraordinary circumstances. | Equitable tolling denied. Motion dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) (judgment final when time for direct appeal expires; Rule 35 reduction does not affect finality for AEDPA limitations)
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432 (1999) (statutory construction begins with plain language)
- United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rule 35(b) reduction does not restart AEDPA limitations)
- Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) (a sentence is a final judgment until reversed or vacated)
- Sandvik v. United States, 177 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999) (equitable tolling standard for untimely § 2255 petitions)
- Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir. 2000) (burden on inmate to show specific facts supporting equitable tolling)