United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
REX I. HATFIELD, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is petitioner Rex I. Hatfield's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The Government has responded (Doc. 7). Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the government's response (Doc. 8) and, prior to the Court's ruling on the motion, petitioner filed his reply (Doc. 9). For the following reasons, petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The Court will also address the other various pending motions (Docs. 11, 14, 15, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37).
Defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to burglarize pharmacies, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2118(b), (d), and to distribute controlled substances (including morphine, methadone, oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, cocaine, and hydrocodone), the use of which resulted in death or serious bodily injury, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846 - specifically, four deaths, plus a serious bodily injury to a fifth user of the defendant's drugs. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison, and he appealed. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed the convictions relating to the four deaths and the serious bodily injury to a fifth user based upon error in the jury instructions, but affirmed the other convictions, 591 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2010). On remand, the Government dismissed the charges the Seventh Circuit reversed, and this Court resentenced defendant to 360 months imprisonment. Defendant then moved for a new trial, and this Court denied that motion. Defendant appealed raising one issue: The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying Appellants' Motion for New Trial for Lack of Materiality Where the Defense's Newly Discovered Evidence, Which Was a New Basis for Impeaching Two Key Government Witnesses With Regard to Their Description of an Important Event, Created a Reasonable Likelihood that the Jury Would Find The Witnesses Were Not Credible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the Court's judgment, 423 Fed.Appx. 648 (7th Cir. 2011). Defendant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied, 132 S.Ct. 536 (2011), on October 31, 2011.
Petitioner filed his § 2255 petition on October 18, 2012. In his 71-page petition, petitioner raises the following seven constitutional claims:
1) His First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the Government inappropriately referred to Pam Hatfield as petitioner's "Estranged Wife" and she, still married to him, testified against him (Doc. 1 at 10-12).
2) His Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his vehicle and hotel room were searched at the Red Roof Inn (Doc. 12-14).
3) His Fifth Amendment rights were violated by (A) the prosecutor suborning perjured testimony at trial; (B) prosecutorial misconduct; (C) impartiality or misconduct of the judge; (D) prohibitive constructive amendments to the indictment; (E) perjury at trial; (F) perjury during Grand Jury hearing; (G) Vindictive prosecution; (H) Selective prosecution; (I) Expo Facto violations; (J) Double jeopardy; (K) Brady violations; (L) inadmissible evidence; (M) violation of motion in limine; (N) testimony outside the scope of the conspiracy (Doc. 1 at 15-51).
4) His Sixth Amendment rights were violated when certain evidence, listed on pages 52 and 53, was admitted at trial in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (Doc. 1 at 51-56).
5) His Seventh Amendment rights were violated when the Court ordered him to pay restitution (Doc. 1 at 68).
6) His Eight Amendment rights were violated because of the restitution he was order to pay and also because the refusal of the U.S. Marshal's office to refer him for a psychiatric evaluation (Doc. 1 at 69).
7) His Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated in the same way his Fifth Amendment rights were violated (Doc. 1 at 70).
In addition to his purely constitutional claims, petitioner raises twenty-four allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the petition and summarizes petitioner's assertions as follows:
1) Counsel failed to file a motion for time served (Doc. 1 at 56).
2) Counsel failed to file objections to the Court's use of the 2010 Guidelines which violated the Ex Post Facto Clause (Doc. 1 at 56).
3) Counsel failed to file objections to the Booker violations when the judge enhanced petitioner's sentence for death resulting in violation of Apprendi (Doc. 1 at 56).
4) Counsel failed to object to fourteen pieces of evidence ...