United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jody
Goldsberry's motion to supplement his original §
2255 motion and memorandum in support (ECF No. 23) and motion
for a 120-day extension of time to file a reply to the
Government's response (ECF No. 26).
April 18, 2019, Petitioner filed his motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence,
asserting the following claims: (1) Petitioner was
unconstitutionally deprived of his right to review discovery
materials and obtain transcripts that are not altered,
molested, tainted, and/or incomplete; (2) defense counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the Court sentencing
Petitioner as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. §
924(e); (3) the Court failed to provide Petitioner with a
hearing on his objections to the presentence report; (4)
Petitioner's second guilty plea was involuntary and
induced by coercion; (5) actual innocence; (6) counsel was
ineffective “during the course of several
proceedings;” and (7) the Court erroneously enhanced
Petitioner's sentence under the sentencing guidelines.
See ECF Nos. 1, 7.
Government filed a response and attached certified copies of
the transcripts of the following Court proceedings: (1) the
July 15, 2014 hearing on Petitioner's motion to suppress;
(2) the April 17, 2015 pretrial conference; (3) the April 24,
2015 change of plea hearing; (4) the August 11, 2015 hearing
on Petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea; (5)
the August 21, 2015 hearing on Petitioner's motion to
withdraw his guilty plea; (6) the January 28, 2016 pretrial
conference and change of plea hearing; (7) two volumes
comprising Petitioner's sentencing held on July 22, 2016;
and (8) the August 10, 2016 motion hearing and continued
sentencing. ECF No. 22.
Petitioner seeks to amend his § 2255 motion. He claims
that the current Court record is incomplete and that he is
unable to access discovery contained on four CD discs that he
received from his former defense attorneys. He also maintains
that a transcript of a jail phone call does not match the
audio recording that accompanied the transcript or
“what was said in open Court on
Record.” ECF No. 23. He does not, however, attach
the transcript or identify to what Court record he is
further contends that he “has in hand absolute proof of
malfeasance of the District Court, Petitioner's Attorney,
and the District Court Stenographer” who
“conspired together to deprive Petitioner of his
constitutional right” to a complete transcript of
various Court proceedings. ECF No. 23 at 3. He claims,
without providing any evidence, that the Court directed the
Court reporter to prepare incomplete transcripts. He also
claims that he “is in possession of materially
exculpatory evidence” of the conspiracy between the
Court and defense counsel to alter Court records. Petitioner
did not attach the purported evidence to his motion.
transcript certified by a court reporter ‘shall be
deemed prima facie a correct statement of the testimony taken
and the proceedings had.'” Hazelrigg v. United
States, No. CIV. 12-5034-JLV, 2012 WL 3129035, at *1-2
(D.S.D. July 31, 2012) (citing United States v.
Hill, 78 Fed.Appx. 223, 225, 2003 WL 22346347 at *1 (4th
Cir. Oct. 15, 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 753(b)).
“A defendant's bald assertion of error is
insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption that the
transcript is correct.” Id.
review, the Court concludes that Petitioner offers no
evidence, other than his own statements, to support his
contention that the transcripts were altered or inaccurate.
For instance, Petitioner claims that transcripts of the
January 28, 2016 pretrial conference and change of plea are
labeled “excerpt, ” which demonstrates that they
are incomplete. However, upon review, it appears that the
proceedings held on January 28, 2016 were divided into two
parts. In the first, the Court addressed various matters
related to conducting a jury trial and Court procedures.
See U.S. v. Goldsberry, 4:14-CR-00091-AGF, ECF No.
209. In the second, Petitioner entered into an open plea
agreement on the record. Id., ECF No. 138,
Accordingly, if Petitioner received both transcripts, he has
a complete transcription of the hearing in his possession.
Petitioner has not offered any evidence that there were
additional matters conducted on the record on this date that
are not reflected in the transcripts.
also claims that there exist discrepancies between the page
numbers of the Government's transcripts and the
transcript he already had in his possession. However, he does
not attach the allegedly inconsistent pages to his motion,
and the Court identified none in its review of the
transcripts in the underlying criminal matter.
short, Petitioner is unable to overcome the statutory
presumption of a transcript's correctness and accuracy.
Further, Petitioner's motion to amend his § 2255
motion contains no new claims or grounds for relief. Instead,
he is reasserting the claims contained in Ground 1 of his
§ 2255 motion. Nevertheless, the Court will receive
Petitioner's “motion to supplement original
memorandum in support of his previously-filed § 2255
pursuant to Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure” as a supplement to his § 2255 motion.
also requests a 120-day extension to file his reply. He
contends that he needs additional time to review the
transcripts attached to the Government's response brief
and obtain complete and accurate copies of Court transcripts
relevant to Petitioner's claims. The Court concludes that
the transcripts attached to the Government's response are
true and accurate copies of the Court's proceedings in
the underlying criminal matter.
the Court will grant in part Petitioner motion, solely to
allow Petitioner a 90-day extension to file a reply.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Jody
Goldsberry's motion to supplement his original §
2255 motion and ...