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.

United States v. Evans

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

December 16, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
KURON EVANS, Defendant.

          Thomas M. Rose, District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          MICHAEL R. MERZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 187). As with all collateral attacks on criminal judgments filed at the Dayton location of court, the § 2255 Motion is referred to the undersigned for report and recommendations, pursuant to General Order DAY 13-01.

         The Motion is before the Court for initial review pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings which provides:

The judge who receives the motion must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party. If the motion is not dismissed, the judge must order the United States to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or take other action the judge may order.

         Litigation History

         Defendant Evans was named in the Second Superseding Indictment filed in this case on May 25, 2017, and included in Counts 1, 11, 12, and 15 (ECF No. 51). On August 22, 2018, he entered into a Plea Agreement with the United States in which he agreed to plead guilty to Count 11 which charged him with distribution of heroin in an unspecified amount, an offense carrying a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment (ECF No. 157). The parties agreed that the appropriate sentence would be sixty months plus three years supervised release. Id. at ¶ 6, PageID 474. Among other things, the United States agreed to recommend that Evans “be allowed to serve his state term of imprisonment prior to the term of incarceration imposed in this case.” Id. at ¶ 7, PageID 475. Section 7 concludes, “Defendant agrees and understands that these recommendations in Paragraph 7 do not bind the Court, and defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the Court declines to accept these recommendations contained in Paragraph 7.” Id. Paragraph 12 of the Plea Agreement reads, “This is the complete agreement between the parties. It supersedes all other promises, representations, understandings, and agreements between the parties.” Id. at PageID 476.

         Following the required plea colloquy under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Judge Rose accepted Evans' guilty plea (Minute Entry, ECF No. 159). On November 27, 2018, and after considering the Presentence Investigation Report from the Probation Department, Judge Rose imposed the agreed sentence and dismissed Counts 1, 12, and 15 (Minute Entry, ECF No. 167; Judgment, ECF No. 168). Evans made no claim at sentencing that he had not been sentenced as agreed upon and he took no appeal; his time to do so expired December 11, 2018. See Fed. R. App. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). He filed his Motion to Vacate by depositing it in the prison mail system December 5, 2019, less than a week before the statute of limitations would have expired.

         Analysis

         Evans pleads one ground for relief:

Ground One: Movant has been denied specific performance of his plea.
Supporting Facts: A specific promise and inducement to enter a plea of guilty herein was the promise that Movant would first be allowed to enter state custody and discharge his sentence obligation. In the event he was not so afforded specific performance, and as a result Movant is denied program participation in FBOP including Community Confinement.

(Motion to Vacate, ECF No. 187, PageID 666.)

         “Plea agreements are contractual in nature” and are therefore interpreted and enforced in accordance with traditional contract law principles. United States v. Lukse, 286 F.3d 906, 909 (6thCir. 2002); United States v. Wells, 211 F.3d 988, 995 (6th Cir. 2000). Once a plea agreement has been interpreted, the burden of proving a breach lies with the party asserting the breach. United States v. Harris, 2006 U.S. ...


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.