Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:

!-'
: :

V. RYAN BALDWIN

NO. 3:03CV980 (JCH) NO. 3:00CR44 (JCH) August 1 5 , 2003

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER T O SHOW CAUSE By order dated June 10, 2003, the Court ordered the Government to show cause by July 1 1 , 2003 why tiie i - e l l e f souc~ilt by t.he defendant in his motion under 28 U.S.C. he granted.
§

2255 should not

The Court subsequently granted the Government's

motion to enlarge the time within which it could respond so that materials pertinent to the defendant's claims could be obtained from his trial counsel. Backqround In late 1 9 9 9 , New Haven Drug Task Force, ("Task Force"), The Government's response follows.

initiat-ed an investigation into the suspected distribution of cocaine base, or "crack", and cocaine in and around the Farnam Court housing complex in New Haven, Connecticut. At the time,

the Task Force was comprised of officers and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the New Haven, West Haven and East Haven Police Departments and other cooperating law enforcement agencies. Farnarn Court houslng complex is a low-income housi-ng project bounded by Grand Avenue, Franklin Avenue and Hamilton Street on the edge of the Fair Haven section of New Haven, and is h o m ~to several hundred residents. The

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 2 of 12

The investigation included an historical review of records of the New Haven Police Department; interviews of individuals historically involved in drug distribution in the Farnam Court area; the execution of state and federal search warrants; direct, video and moving surveillance; supervised purchases of cocaine base from sellers within the complex; consensually recorded telephone conversations; telephone conversations intercepted and recorded pursuant to an order of the District Court; seizures; and debriefings of numerous cooperating witnesses. These

techniques resulted in the accumulation of evidence which established that from the mid-1980s through February 2000, Ryan Baldwin, the defendant herein, operated a pervasive cocaine base and cocaine distribution organization which virtually monopolized the sale of those drugs in the Farnam Court project over that period. The evidence also established that, after the arrest of

the defendant in February 2000, he passed leadership of the operation over to Todd Davender, who continued to manage it until his arrest on August 27, 2000. At the conclusion of the investigation, a federal grand jury sitting in Bridgeport, Connecticut returned a superseding indictment in which the defendant, Davender and nine other individuals were charged with narcotics and narcotics-related offenses. As of April 30, 2001, the defendnat, Davender,

Theodore Smith, Anita Morales, Tyron Conley, Georgina McCleese and Corey Harris had entered pleas of guilty to cocaine base conspiracy charges. In addition, as of that date, Patrick

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 3 of 12

S t p n s o l ] a n d G e o r c j e C u n n l n g h a m 11ad e n t e r e d p l e a s of q u i 1 ;/ t o 1 c h a r y e ot offense.
sing a t e l e p h o n e t o f a c i l i t a t e a

,i

narcotic:^ t r a f f i c k i n q

From A p r i l 3 0 t h r o u g h May 2 ,

2001, t h e remaining

d e f e n d a n t s , L o u i s P h e l m ~ t t oa n d T y r e s e B a r k e r , w e r e t r l e d b e t o r e
a j u r y and U.S.
D i s t r i c t Judge JaneL H a l l .

On May 2 , b o t h

d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d p l e a s of g u i l t y to a c h a r g e of m i s p r i s i o n of a felony. trial, Davender t h e n wit-hdrew h i s g u i l t y p l e a a n d p r o c e e d e d t o a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f w h i c h h e was c o n v i c t e d a n d s e n t e n c e d incarceration

t o a l e n g t h y t e x - r n of

On May 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e d e f e n d a n t was s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o f i n c a r - c e r a t i o n of 3 2 4 months, supervised release By m o t i o n d a t e & , b a y 2 9 . 2003,

t o b e f o l l o w e d by 60 months o f

'

t h e d e f e n d a n t asserts t h a t

h i s c o u n s e l i n t h e d i s ~ ' p c l c tc o u r t was i n e f f e c t i v e , and s e e k s t o have certai-rl sentencing i s s u e s r e v i s i t e d . Because t h e the relief he

d e f e n d a n t ' s a s s e r t i o n s a r e completely ungrounded, s e e k s must b e d e n i e d Arqument

T h e d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t h i s c o u n s e l i n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t was i n e f f e c t i v e b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d t o c o n t e s t p o r t i o n s o f t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n report i n which h e w a s a s s e s s e d a q u a n t i t y a t t r i b u t i o n which corresponded to a b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l o f 38 a n d a f o u r - l e v e l r o l e e n h a n c e m e n t . However, the transcript

Although t h e dyfgnaant s motion a p p e a r s t o b e untimely, ? having b e e n f i l e d o n l u n e 2,,2003, m o r e t h a n o n e y e a r a f t e r h e was s e n t e n c e d , the ~ o b z r n m e o t w i 11 r e s p o n d t o t i l e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e motion.

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 4 of 12

of the proceedings, which is included in the defendant's papers as Exhibit D , establishes that counsel purposely and with the consent of the defendant withdrew objections to the quantity and role findings in the PSI, and did so because it was tactically to the defendant's advantage. Exhibit D at 3-4. He also went on to

argue aggressively but carefully for adjustments to the criminal history calculations in the PSI and for a downward departure based on non-offense conduct factors.

I .at d

7-8, 28-31. The

transcript makes it clear that, in seeking sentencing reductions for the defendant, counsel was always mindful that over-reaching could result in an examination of the record which could adversely affect the defendant, see id. at 9, or could result in his losing precious adjustment points for acceptance of responsibility. Correspondence between the defendant and his attorney, attached hereto as Exhibits 2 , 3 and 4 , and a file memorandum generated by the attorney, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, corroborate this decisively.

In Exhibit 1, defense ccunsel explains that h? contacted the
defendant at the facility at which he was detained and discussed the abandonment of the defendant's then-pending claims for a lower quantity attribution and the elimination of an upward role adjustment. The memo memorializes the defendant's understanding

of and agreement with these tactical decisions. In Exhibit 2 , defense counsel advises the defendant that he has conveyed to the Court and to the Government the defendant's

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 5 of 12

decision not to contest the PSI provisions on quantity and role. Finally, in Exhibits 3 and 4 , defense counsel explains the availability of the appeal remedy, and confirms that the defendant does not wish to pursue an appeal. The test for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in Strickland v. Washinqton, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The first prong of the Strickland test requires a defendant to demonstrate that in specific instances his or her "counsellsrepresentation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . .

. . " Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88. "The

Court 'must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,' bearing in mind that '[tlhere are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case' and that [elven the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way. l" United States v. Aquirre, 912 F.2d

555, 560 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). Here, given the circumstances of his plea and sentencing as born out by the plea agreement, the sentencing transcript and the memorandum and correspondence of defense counsel, the defendant has completely failed to establish that his attorney fell short of what is required of him in any respect. The defendant had the

benefit of competent counsel throughout his dealings with the Court, he understood the nature and particulars of the plea and sentencing proceedings. There is simply no basis in the record

for this Court to conclude that the defendant received

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 6 of 12

ineffective assistance of counsel in his case. Conclusion For all of the reasons set forth above, and as may otherwise appear in the record, the relief requested by the defendant must be denied. Respectfully submitted,
K E V I N J.iOICONNOR ATTORNEY

ASSI &ANT

u .s .

ATTORNEY

157 CHURCH S T R E E T P . O . BOX 1824 NEW HAVEN, CT 06508 (203) 773-2108 FEDERAL BAR # ct05153

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 7 of 12

s

Case:

31215-2 BALD-

Date:

MAY21,2002

From:

Joseph W. ~ a n i n i y

*

On May 20,2002, at approximately 8:00a.m., I placed a call to the Donald W. Wyatt Detention F a c w and left a message for Jean SingletDn, a counselor at that facil'1ty. I asked Jean Singleton to contact my client, Ryan Baldwin, and ask Mr. Baldwin KO call me sometime today. Shortly thereafter, I received a telephone call from Ryan Baldwin I told Ryan that the reason that I was calling was that I was getting prepared for a telephone status conference with the court, currently scheduled for May 21, at 8130 a.m. I told Ryan that I wanted to confirm with him that we are not going to object to the findings in the Presentence Repon regarding drug quantity and role. I had previously discussed these matters with Ryan, and had advised him that based on Judge Hall's rulings in the Davender case, it was not in our best interest to argue against the application of a role adjustment and against the attribution to him of over 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. I told him, in substance, that if we were to challenge these findings that we would risk losing our reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which, in this guideline range, was significant. Ryan agreed with me, as he did when we discussed this previously. That is, I confmed with him that we would not pursue either of these two issues at his senwndng next week. Ryan and I also discussed that we would instead devote our energies to attacking the findings of the Presentence Report regarding criminal history category and other downward departure factors.

I also told Ryan that I had been uading calls with Dwayne Clark, and asked Ryan to reach out to Dwayne to tell Dwayne to continue to ty to get in touch with me. r

a5
fWW31?15&'39313~1 O R 1102-SPT/ S

EXHIBIT

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 8 of 12

.-PE=
A BUSINESS LAW FIRM

LLP

JOSEPH W.MARTMI Attorney At Law $Also Admined i M & D.C. n Direct Dial: 203.3 19.4002 [email protected]

May 2 1 , 2002

By Federal Express

*Mr. Ryan Baldwin, Inmate #13811-014 Donald W. Wyan Detention Center
950 High Street I Central Falls, R 02863
Dear Ryan: I participated in a conference call with Judge Hall this morning. During the call, we discussed issues relating to your sentencing, which is now scheduled for May 29 ar 9:30. This is a firm date and will not change. Please start telling your friends and family that this is the date. I will call Arnetta and tell her. You have the right to speak at your sentencing. You should give some thought to what you would like to say, if anything. We should talk about rhis before May 29. During today's call, the Judge warned to know what issues we plan to raise at sentencing. Consistent wirh our conversations, I told rhe Judge rhat we would not be contesting the fmdings of the presenrence report on the issues of drug quantiry (paragraph 58 of the Presentence Report) or role in the offense (paragraph 60). As we discussed, any challenge on rhese issues is effectively sprevented by the Judge's findings at sentencing in the Davender case. Also, any challenge in rhe face of the strong record already in place would mean that we would risk losing the three point reduction for acceptance of responsibility (paragraph 64). The Judge understood this strategy, but was careful to point our that she doesn't want the impression to be that she has a closed mind on these issues, and that she wasn't heard what we might say. If you have second thoughts about this strategy, you need to call me immediately. Also, there was an issue raised about an increase for use of a minor. (See the addendum to the Presentence Report). The government stated that it is nor going to press this issue.

-

fq

JW~V31Zl5W3931~vl
0512 1102-SPTl

BOSTON

HARTFORD
wwpcpchazard w n r

SOUTH PORT

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

NO.Page 9 of 12 4835 P. 4
I.I.IP

-R yD
May 2 1,2002 Page 2 Therefore, my plan at senrencing is to convince the court to impose a lower sentence by making arguments about your criminal hjstory (hat it is too high) and requesting a downward depamre. There is no guaranty b a t either argument will work. In fact, rbe court may view you as having gotten a benefit already because two of your prior convictions did nor count in your criminal history calculation and the government agreed not to a file second offender notice, rhus saving you from a mandatory life term. Anyway, we need to make these arguments as I believe they represent our best shot.
I enclose the Presentence Repon (wiih addendum), my sentencing memorandum and the Davender senrencing transcript for you tp review. I am sending them again in case you have misplaced the copies I previously sent to you. Please review the Presentence Report again carefully as the Judge will ask you if you have read it and whether you have any objections to it.

*

Finally, it may be helpful to have family members speak at sentencing. You should rhink about this and wherher you think it would be a good idea to have Ametta, for example, address h e court, or your mother. We should talk about this as well.

Si cerely,

j6seph W. Manini

9.

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 10 of 12

P -

LLP
JOSEPH W. MARTINI Admined i NY & D.C. n
Direct Did: (203) 319-4002 jrnanhi@pepehazardcom

A BUSINESS LAW FIRM

May 30, 2002

By Federal Express
Mr. Ryan Baldwin, Inmate #I381 1-014 Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center 950 High Street Central Falls, F 02863 U
Dear Ryan:

*

I enclose a copy of the government's response to our original sentencing memorandum. The government sent this to me by fax on Tuesday night, and I therefore did nor have a chance to go over it with you. However, the government's positions in thisresponse are the same as those articulated in court yesterday.
Second, as we discussed on the telephone today, there js really only one issue to raise on appeal, and rhar is the Judge's ruling concerning the criminal history point for committing the insrant offense less than w o years froin your release from the New York State Jail. As we discussed today, given the fact thaf the judge departed downward from your criminal history category ro a lower category, it does not make much sense to take an appeal from the judge's decision. Also, you should know that a defendant cannot appeal the extent of the court's downward departure. In other words, we cannot ask that the appeal court reverse the sentence on the ground that the judge did not depart far enough. Although, in my view, there is little season to appeal, it is your decision and I need you to indicate to me one way or the other whether you intend to file an appeal. Please do this immediately because, as rhe judge explained yesterday, we only have ten days within which to make our decision.

-

Finally, as I told you, I have placed calls to Dwayne Clark and to your sister, as you asked me-to do bur I have not yet beard from them. I will keep you posted once I do make contact with *either one of them or anyone else.

f5-F]
J W M :kap
SOUTHPORT

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 11 of 12

/ @

LLP
A

BUSINESS LAW FIRM

June 6 , 2002

By Federal Express

*

Mr. Ryan Baldwin, Inmate #I381 1-014
Donald W. Wyatt Detention Center 950 High Street Central Falls, RT 02863
Dear Ryan:

I enclose a copy of the judgment in your case. As you can see the judgment was entered by , the court on or abour May 3 1 , 2002. l we have discussed, I understand that you do not wish to j b file an appeal from this sentence, but w s to pursue other possible avenues o coopration with the ! ih f government- If, for some reason, my undersranding is incorrect, you need to call me &ediately i upon receipt of t h . ~ sletter. As the Judge told you, your right ro file an appeal expires wirhin 1 0 days of your sentencing.
Sincerely,

i

i 6.

3

HARTFORD
-pcpchanrd-

SOUTHPORT

Case 3:00-cr-00044-SRU

Document 642-2

Filed 08/20/2007

Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the within a i foregoing rd has been mailed, postage prepaid, on August 15, 2003 to: Ryan Baldwin NO. 13811-014 Federal Correctional Institution PO Box 1000 Otisville, NY 10963 Joseph W. Martini, Esq. Pepe & Hazard 30 Jelliff Lane Southport, CT 06490-1436

1
H. GD, DON HALL