Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

April 20, 2017

TONY JUNIOR JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255

          ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on the on Petitioner's “Motion to Expand Record of § 2255 Petition with Affidavit Rule (7)” (Dkt. 4) and Motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (Dkt. 1). The Court has reviewed the pleadings filed regarding the petition and the remaining file.

         Petitioner seeks 28 U.S.C. §2255 habeas corpus relief from his 144 month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1594(c). Dkt. 1. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when: 1) his attorney failed to object to a miscalculation of his base offense level, 2) “abandoned” him with his contentions at sentencing regarding multiple count adjustments, and 3) “ex post facto cause dealing with supervised release.” Dkt. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to expand the record be granted and the petition should be denied.

         I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The citations in this Background Facts and Procedural History section are to the case management and electronic court filing (“CM/ECF”) numbers assigned in the underlying criminal case, United States v. Jackson, Western District of Washington case 14-5242 RJB, unless otherwise noted.

         A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF CRIMINAL CASE

         On September 16, 2014, Mr. Jackson, and his co-defendant James Young, were indicted on multiple sex trafficking offenses. Dkt. 29. Mr. Jackson was indicted in: Count 1: Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, and Coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1594(c); Counts 3-5: Sex Trafficking through Force, Fraud and Coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1591(b)(1); Count 6: Conspiracy to Transport Females for Prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and Counts 8-9: Interstate Transportation for the Purpose of Prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. Dkt. 29.

         As to Count One, the First Superseding Indictment charges that:

From approximately June of 2013, and continuing through June of 2014, within the Western District of Washington and elsewhere, James R. Young and Tony J. Jackson, knowingly did conspire and agree with each other, in affecting interstate commerce, to recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, and obtain by any means, adult females, with the knowledge that force, fraud, and coercion, and any combination of such means, would be used to cause the adult females to engage in commercial sex acts.

Id., at 1-2.

         Mr. Jackson entered into a Plea Agreement with the government. Dkt. 137. As part of the agreement, Mr. Jackson agreed to plead guilty to Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, and Coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1594(c) as charged in Count One of the First Superseding Indictment. Id. In his Plea Agreement, Mr. Jackson indicated that he “understands that the statutory penalties applicable Conspiracy to Engage in Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, and Coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) and 1594(c) are as follows: a maximum term of life imprisonment, a fine of up to $250, 000.00, a period of supervision following release from prison of up to five (5) years, and a special assessment of $100.00.” Dkt. 137, at 2. As is relevant here, the Plea Agreement further provided that “[n]otwithstanding the sentencing court's calculation of the applicable sentencing guideline range, the parties agree to recommend a sentence of not less than 120 months and not more than 180 months of imprisonment concurrent with any imprisonment imposed in Western District of Washington Cause Number 14-5584RBL.” Dkt. 137, at 7. The Plea Agreement further provided that Mr. Jackson acknowledged “that by entering the guilty plea required by this plea agreement, [Mr. Jackson] waive[d] . . . [a]ny right to bring a collateral attack against the conviction and sentence . . . except as it may relate to the effectiveness of legal representation.” Id., at 9-10.

         Mr. Jackson was represented by assigned counsel, Charles Johnston when he entered his guilty plea on November 20, 2015. Dkt. 136.

         In the presentence investigation report (“PSR”), United States Probation calculated Mr. Jackson's sentencing guideline range under U.S.S.G. §2G1.1(a)(1). Dkt. 155, filed under seal. The PSR recommended the court find that the Mr. Jackson's base offense level was 34 under the theory that the conspiracy should be sentenced in the same manner as the substantive offense - sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion. Dkt. 155, at 5. The PSR recommended that Mr. Jackson's total offense level be found to be 38, and his criminal history category was VI. Id. As a result, the PSR recommended a sentence range of 360 months to life. Id., at 14.

         Mr. Jackson's lawyer filed a sentencing memorandum, in which he agreed that the base offense level was 34, but argued that his total offense level should be lower, asserting that there should not have been a 2 level increase for victim J.H. and argued that the “multiple-count” adjustment regarding the number of victims was incorrect. Dkt. 170. Mr. Johnston agreed that Petitioner's criminal history category was VI and argued that Petitioner should receive a ten year sentence, the minimum of the agreed sentencing recommendation range. Id.

         On April 22, 2016, the Court conducted a sentencing hearing. Dkts. 175 and 259. Mr. Johnston was present and represented Mr. Jackson. Id. At the hearing, Mr. Johnston discussed Mr. Jackson's difficulties in life, and argued that Petitioner's net offense level should be 31. Dkt. 259, at 3. The Court then turned to the question of the multiple count adjustment. Dkt. 259, at 3. Mr. Johnston, though he did not agree with Mr. Jackson, allowed Mr. Jackson to address the Court regarding his position. Dkt. 259, at 3-4. After Mr. Jackson addressed the Court, the undersigned responded:

Well, you know, it is clear that I am not a fan of the guidelines, and this is another case where, however we compute the guidelines, all parties agree that the sentence should be less than the low end, low range of the guidelines. So this is mostly an academic exercise.
Even with an offense level of 31, and a history of VI, we get to a guideline range of 188 to 235 months. In light of the complexity of the grouping issues, and Mr. Jackson's objections, I am inclined to just make a finding that the range is 188 to 235 months, because that finding gives the defendant the benefit of the doubt and will not affect the sentencing in this case.

Dkt. 259, at 5. Mr. Jackson's counsel then argued that he should be sentenced to ten years. Dkt. 259, at 8-13. The government argued he should be sentenced to 15 years. Dkt. 259, at 6. Mr. Jackson was sentenced to 144 months of imprisonment. Dkt. 198. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Jackson was sentenced to ten years of supervised release. Dkt. 259, at 16. He objected at the hearing, and argued he should only get five years. Dkt. 259, at 19. The undersigned told the lawyers to check the proper term and submit it to the Court. Id. On May 18, 2017, an Amended Judgment was entered, sentencing Mr. Jackson to 144 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Dkt. 198, at 3.

         Mr. Jackson did not file an appeal. On January 27, 2017, he filed the instant Motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. Dkt. 268; refiled as Dkt. 1 in this case Jackson v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.