Case o' The Week: Ninth Dodges Pot, Shot - Davies and Plea Agreement Collateral-Attack Waivers
A non-cap habe raises execution issues, in a Section
2241 opinion.
Davies v. Benov, 2017 WL 2125897(9th Cir.
May 17, 2017), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge Gould, joined by Judges Wardlaw
and Callahan.
Facts: Davies owned medical marijuana dispensaries in
California, which he contended complies with state law. Id. at *1. He was charged federally in the ED Cal, and plead guilty
to a five year term. Id. The plea agreement
had a waiver provision that read, “Regardless of the sentence he receives, the
defendant also gives up any right he may have to bring a postappeal attack on
his conviction or his sentence. He specifically agrees not to file a motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241 attacking his conviction or sentence.” Id. A year into Davies’ term, Congress
passed an appropriation rider. That rider prohibited the use of federal funds
to prosecute offenses otherwise legal under state medical marijuana laws. Id. at *2. Davies filed a Section 2241
habeas petition, arguing that BOP’s use of federal funds to incarcerate him
violated this appropriations rider. Id.
The magistrate judge denied the petition, holding that the plea agreement
waiver barred the challenge. Id.
Issue(s): “The sole question presented here is whether the plea
agreement’s waiver provision clearly bars Davies from bringing his § 2241
petition, which challenges his continued incarceration based on the
appropriations rider. “ Id. at *2.
Held: “The waiver language included in Davies's plea agreement
is broad and unambiguous, and we hold that it precludes Davies’s petition on
the grounds he raised.” Id. at *2.”
Of Note: Davies made an interesting, albeit unsuccessful,
argument. The waiver language in this plea agreement prohibited an appeal of “any aspect of the sentence imposed in
this case.” Id. at *3 (emphasis
added). By contrast, the collateral-attack waiver provision did not have that “any
aspect of his sentence” clause. Id.
Davies argued that the
collateral-attack waiver was less broad than the appellate waiver. It’s an –
appealing – argument, given the old contra
proferentem rule we learned in law school (a rule acknowledged by Judge Gould,
who concedes that because the government drafted the agreement, “ambiguities
are construed in favor of the defendant.” Id.
at *2 (citing United States v. Charles,
581 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2009).
Unfortunately, the Ninth holds
the waiver language is not ambiguous: “Despite differences in the language of
the direct-appeal and collateral-attack waiver provisions, the collateral attack
waiver provision states the scope of the waiver: Davies gives up any right to
bring a post-appeal attack on his conviction or sentence. The scope of the
collateral-attack waiver provision clearly covers his present challenge.
Limitations on any right to attack his sentence encompasses challenges to the
execution and conditions of his sentence, as his challenge is styled here, as
well as to the legality of his sentence.” Id.
at *3.
How to Use:
What about inmates serving federal prison sentences for (medical) marijuana
offenses, who pleaded open, or who were convicted after trial? Unlike Davies, they are unencumbered
by these collateral-attack waivers.
Judge Gould expressly reserves the question
if the BOP can use federal funds to incarcerate these folks: “we need not reach
and save for another day the issue of whether the expenditure of federal funds
to incarcerate individuals who fully complied with state medical marijuana laws
violates the appropriations rider.” Id.
at *3.
Would make for an interesting § 2241 petition, for these inmates in federal prison.
For Further
Reading: With any luck, Johnson warriors will be freeing another tranche of over-serving petitioners
after a Dimaya victory next Tuesday.
SCOTUS’s next opinion drop is May 30 at 9:30 EDT: opinions will be live-blogged
here.
Image of Medical Marijuana
bag from http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/140306122410-medical-marijuana-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg
Steven Kalar, Federal Public
Defender, N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Gould, Medical marijuana, Plea Agreements, Waivers
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home