Opinion
Case No. 2:00-CR-178.
October 2, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Chacy S. Williams' Motion for Reduction of Sentence (Doc. 48). The Government has not responded to the motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendant Williams' Motion for Reduction of Sentence.
I. FACTS
In the Plea Agreement filed November 13, 2000, Defendant Williams agreed to plead guilty to one count of armed bank robbery, and one count of using and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (Doc. 9). On December 17, 2001, this Court sentenced him to 84 months incarceration on each count to run consecutively, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release on each count to run concurrently. Defendant Williams has previously filed an appeal (Doc. 26), Motion to Vacate under 28. U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 31), Motion to Supplement Motion to Vacate (Doc. 32), Motion to Amend Motion to Vacate (Doc. 38), and a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to 60(b)(5) (Doc. 42). Defendant has been unsuccessful on all of his previously filed motions.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant Williams requests the Court to reduce his sentence for lack of sufficient counsel and for good behavior. (Mot. for Reduction at 5-6, 8-10). The Government has filed no response to the immediate motion.A district court may not modify an imposed sentence unless "expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). In this case, Defendant Williams has failed to identify any statute or rule applicable to his situation.
Defendant Williams argues the Sixth Amendment right to counsel should be interpreted to give a right to "constitutionally effective assistance." (Mot. for Reduction at 5). He then goes on to argue the Sixth Amendment provides a standard to prevail on ineffective assistance claims:
[D]efendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient, in that it involved errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment, and that those deficiencies were prejudicial to the defense. . . . defendant must show that counsels conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that counsel's identified acts and omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. [D]efendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability, or a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. . . . whether better lawyering would have produced a different result.
(Mot. for Reduction at 5-6). This Court does not agree with Defendant Williams' interpretation.
"[T]he core purpose of the counsel guarantee [in the Sixth Amendment] was to assure `Assistance' at trial, when the accused was confronted with both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor." United States. v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 309 (1973). Defendant "can therefore make out a claim of ineffective assistance only by pointing to specific errors made by trial counsel." United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 666 (1984). Defendant Williams' only attempt at asserting a specific error is a claim that his counsel mishandled his medical records and should have used them for a possible trial strategy. (Mot. for Reduction at 7). It is not this Court's purpose to question the trial strategy of counsel, for we are to presume that the lawyer is competent and will provide the guiding hand that a defendant needs. See Cronic at 658 (citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 100-101 (1955)) (stating that counsel is presumed competent and the burden rests on the accused to demonstrate a constitutional violation).
Additionally, Defendant asserts mitigating factors of a "clean record" and completion of the Beaumont Federal Prison C.O.D.E. Program in requesting his reduction of sentence. (Mot. for Reduction at 9-10). Although this Court admires the Defendant's efforts in personal betterment, a reduction of sentence in accordance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 35 is not applicable here. The Bureau of Prisons is entitled to award `credit' for good behavior, but the discretion is left to them. See 18 USCA § 3625(b)(1).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Defendant Williams' sentence is just and proper. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reduction of Sentence. The Clerk shall remove Document 48 from the Court's pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.