The opinion of the court was delivered by: S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Provision of Transcripts, Copies of Pre-Arrest and Post-Arrest Videos, and Laboratory Analyses to Indigent Defendant for Use in Proceeding Under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (doc. 33), the United States' Response to Request for Discovery (doc. 34), and Defendant's Reply (doc. 35).
Defendant was arrested for, and charged with, possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base on January 14, 2005 (doc. 34). An Officer took Defendant to the FBI Field Office in Cincinnati, Ohio, and advised Defendant of his Miranda rights (Id.). While at the office, Defendant agreed to be interviewed by the agents without an attorney present. There Defendant admitted he had been selling narcotics since his release from prison on May 18, 2004 (Id.). He also admitted that he had purchased 28.6 grams of cocaine that day, manufactured it into crack, and had intended to sell it to his customers. Defendant provided further information to the FBI regarding both his customers and his supplier (Id.). The next day, the FBI searched Defendant's home and found approximately twenty-one grams of crack cocaine, various items used for making crack cocaine, and approximately $1,427.00 in cash (Id.).
Defendant admitted to these facts and pled guilty to the charge. Because he pled guilty, he received a reduced sentence for his crime (Id.). Defendant now requests that he be provided with transcripts of his plea and sentencing hearings, pre-arrest and post-arrest videos, and all laboratory analyses (doc. 33). Defendant seeks these materials in anticipation of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 (Id.). Defendant also contends that he cannot pay for the reproduction of these items and requests that the Court order them produced at no charge to Defendant (Id.). The United States opposes Defendant's request for the videos and laboratory analyses, but does not oppose Defendant's request for copies of the transcripts from his plea and sentencing hearings (doc. 34).
In order to obtain relief under Section 2255, Defendant must show "the existence of an error of constitutional magnitude which had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the guilty plea or the jury's verdict." Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2003). Defendant did not provide evidence of any such violation in his Motion, but rather moves for the production of discovery so as to assist him in drafting and filing a Section 2255 motion (doc. 33).
Defendant admitted to the possession, manufacture, and distribution of crack cocaine, and pled guilty to the charge (doc. 34). Given this circumstance, it is highly improbable that Defendant will be able to gain relief under Section 2255. "It is well settled that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty made by an accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be collaterally attacked." Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 508 (1984). A guilty plea may only be attacked if the consensual nature of the plea is called into question (Id.). Defendant has not called into question the consensual nature of his plea, nor indicated how the provision of the discovery he requests is essential to his ability to draft and file a Section 2255 motion.
For these reasons, the Court does not find well-taken Defendant's request for his pre-arrest and post-arrest videos, and all laboratory analyses. Yet as the government does not object to the provision of transcripts of Defendant's plea and sentencing hearings, the Court finds it appropriate for Defendant to have them, so as to review the plea he entered into the record.
For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion for Provision of Transcripts, Copies of Pre-Arrest and Post-Arrest Videos, and Laboratory Analyses to Indigent Defendant for Use in Proceeding Under 28 U.S.C. §2255 (doc. 33), with respect to the transcripts of his plea and sentencing hearings, and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion with respect to the pre-arrest and post-arrest videos and the laboratory analyses. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail Defendant copies of the pertinent plea and sentencing hearing transcripts.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...