United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
JEFFREY A. BAKER, Movant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Crim. No. 4:08-CR-00256-DGK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF AND CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
GREG KAYS, Chief District Judge.
This case arises out of Movant Jeffrey Baker's guilty plea for bank robbery and aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm. Pending before the Court is Movant's pro se "Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody" (Civ. Doc. 1). Finding Movant's arguments are without merit and an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, the Court denies the motion and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
As the Government's statement of facts accurately summarizes the record documents, the Court essentially adopts the majority of the factual and procedural background facts from the Government's Suggestions in Opposition (Civ. Doc. 5).
On September 10, 2008, a grand jury empaneled in the Western District of Missouri returned a two-count indictment charging Movant with: (1) bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d); and (2) aiding and abetting his co-defendant's carrying, brandishing, and use of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (Crim. Doc. 1 at 1-2). Movant eventually pled guilty to both counts (Crim. Doc. 33).
On June 30, 2009, the Court sentenced Movant (Crim. Doc 48). He received a 46-month prison sentence on Count One, and an 84-month prison sentence on Count Two (Crim. Doc. 59 at 16). The Court ordered Movant to serve the sentences consecutively (Crim. Doc. 59 at 16). Movant appealed to the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the Court erred in running the sentences consecutively. United States v. Baker, 384 F.Appx. 526, 528 (8th Cir. 2010). The Eighth Circuit affirmed on July 15, 2010. Id. at 529. The sentence became final ninety days later, on October 13, 2010.
On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alleyne v. United States, holding that a district court may not increase a mandatory minimum sentence based on facts not found by the jury. 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013). Movant subsequently filed the instant motion on May 15, 2014, arguing that Alleyne retroactively applies to his case and entitles him to resentencing (Civ. Doc. 1 at 4). The Government filed a response on July 1, 2014, arguing that Movant's motion is untimely (Civ. Doc. 5 at 1-2). Movant failed to respond despite being ordered to do so by the Court (Civ. Doc. 6). Movant's motion is now ripe for review.
In a proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district court may "vacate, set aside or correct [a] sentence" that "was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The movant is entitled to a hearing "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief...." Id. § 2255(b).
A one-year statute of limitations applies to Section 2255 motions. Id. § 2255(f). The one-year limitations period runs from the latest of the following:
(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;
(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action;
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through ...