Opinion
CRIMINAL 22-324
10-07-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KONATA MATTHEWS
MEMORANDUM
Gerald Austin McHugh United States District Judge
Konata Matthews is serving a 100-month sentence for bank robbery that was imposed after the court accepted a recommendation negotiated by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure11(c)(1)(c). Mr. Matthews exercised his right to represent himself, having done so previously on state charges with satisfactory results. He now brings a series of motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, having attempted unsuccessfully to forestall sentencing through a writ of mandamus.
Judicial economy would be ill served by any lengthy recitation of facts. The history of this case was summarized in detail during defendant's sentencing hearing. ECF 84. The relevant portions of the transcript are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Suffice it to say that Mr. Matthews negotiated a sentence that by any objective measure was entirely fair, and if anything, generous, given the criminal conduct in which he engaged. After pleading guilty, he then pursued a course of obstruction apparently in the hope of negotiating more favorable terms.
Collectively, these motions encompass two themes: purported irregularities at sentencing and a plea for compassionate release. As to sentencing, Mr. Matthews appears to claim error because his offer of proof was refused, he had no counsel, and he was absent from the courtroom. His offer of proof was denied because the Court had previously heard testimony as to the evidence of his guilt, and the proof he described consisted of fanciful conspiracy theories seemingly rooted in the fictions of the Sovereign Citizen movement. He had no counsel at that stage because he had repeatedly asserted his right to represent himself, and when counsel was later appointed to review the record, and specifically review the fairness of the terms of the negotiated sentence, Mr. Matthews refused to cooperate. Finally, he was removed from the courtroom pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(c)(1)(c) because of disruptive conduct over a series of proceedings, after fair warning. In that regard, Mr. Matthews was able to hear the remainder of the proceeding from the cell immediately adjacent to the courtroom, which is wired for sound. (See Exhibit A.)
As to compassionate release, sentencing irregularities, even if they existed, are ordinarily not properly the subject of a § 2255 motion. United States v. Von Vader, 58 F. 4th 369 (7th Cir. 2023). In any event, Mr. Matthews has separately moved for compassionate release, and his arguments will be addressed in the resolution of that motion.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 88, will also be denied, as duplicative of the issues discussed here.
These motions are frivolous, and there is no basis for granting a certificate of appealability.
EXHIBIT A
MR. MATTHEWS: I'm not. No. I'm, not -- you're all are not doing this. You're not doing this. You're not doing this. You're not forcing this on me. I presented fraud, all kinds of stuff to you, before this court. You not -- you're sitting here and I file papers in the third circuit. You don't even have no attorney on here. You aren't asking me if I want another lawyer or nothing. Just coming here try (unintelligible) in here. You aren't trying to force stuff for me. That's not the way. That's racism. Oppression in office that day -violate my rights
(Kanata Matthews escorted out of the Courtroom.)
THE COURT: Is he -- is the prisoner secure?
Thank you, deputies. For purposes of the record, I -- I'm going to begin by describing the architecture of courtroom 9B, here in the Albany courthouse. And that is that the holding cell is immediately adjacent to the Courtroom.
Mr. Matthews is literally fifty feet away from where I sit now. There is a speaker from the Courtroom into the cell area. We tested the speaker this morning so that we could be clear that Mr. Matthews could hear the proceedings. I'm now going to put on the record the history of this matter that I think may be relevant and then proceed to the business at hand, which is sentencing. And from the outset of this case, Mr. Matthews insisted on his right to represent himself. He did that in front of three magistrate judges before this court, and he did it with me because he has that right. He was allowed to proceed.
He represented to the Court that he had previously represented himself in State Court successfully and in fact proceeded to negotiate with Mr. Jayne and came to a recommended sentence in this case. There at -- at the time that Mr. Matthews appeared to enter his plea, he then expressed some concern or reluctance. And as a result of that, the Court continued the guilty plea hearing and gave him approximately five weeks to consider the plea agreement what he had negotiated in the recommended sentence. He then returned, we held a plea hearing. I engaged in an extensive colloque with Mr. Matthews. He admitted to having committed the crimes. He admitted to all and understanding of all of the charges against him. He admitted that he understood the recommended sentence and under also understood he was giving up his right that to proceed to trial.
I explained to Mr. Matthews then that we still needed to do a pre-sentence investigation, and we would proceed in accordance with our regular procedures. Mr. Matthews then appeared a -- requested a continuance of the sentencing on the basis that he had a medical issue. I investigated that through the Federal Detention Center, determined that he did not have any issue that would prevent sentencing. And so the sentencing proceeded. When Mr. Matthews appeared, he was belligerent, he was disruptive. One of the reasons I have removed him from the Courtroom today is it was very difficult to establish a clear record and the transcriptionist struggled mightily and did a fine job, but not with stating that there's a lack of clarity that comes when you have a disruptive defendant. And it's for that reason that I have removed him from the Courtroom today.
We then rescheduled the sentencing hearing. And early November, Mr. Matthews again appeared, at that time he essentially apologized for his prior behavior and said that he simply needed an attorney to consider things. And if he was given an attorney who would review the plea agreement he expected that we would proceed. I then appointed counsel. For legal purposes, I could easily have ruled that Mr. Matthews had forfeited his right to counsel by his previous insistence and disruptive behavior I did not do so. Instead, I accorded him a greater measure of due process and appointed an attorney.
I'll note that I -- I took pains to appoint a particularly well regarded attorney. All of the attorneys in our Criminal Justice Act list are credentialed, qualified, they're screened before we allow them to take cases. The attorney I appointed, Mr. Turner, had particularly impressed me in prior matters. His academic credentials are sterling, a graduate of Havard, for college and University of Pennsylvania Law School. He spent seven years as a public defender, and when he came to Philadelphia, he played a role in the criminal law representation, one of the major international firms, Ballard Spahr. He then formed his own practice, having been impressed with his performance in numerous matters, I appointed Mr. Turner because of my high confidence in him.
I'll note as well that he's a public minded attorney, having served as chairperson of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He also has a keen awareness of the rights of defendants having served as chair, the Board of Directors of the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project, and he volunteers to assist this court's reentry program. I know that Mr. Turner met with Mr. Matthews, both from the Federal Detention Center and from Mr. Matthews submissions to the Court.
Thereafter, however Mr. Turner advised that he attempted twice to visit with Mr. Matthews, who refused the visits. And then I received the filing from Mr. Matthews seeking the removal of Mr. Turner and once again citing to debunk the theories of the sovereign citizen movement. And so on that basis I -- I have granted the Defendant's motion to remove Mr. Turner, but I do not intend to appoint another counsel at this point.
Let me now talk about some broader issues relevant to the case. And the first is, do I have any concern about Mr. Matthews' competence? And the answer to that is no. He's immature and antisocial, but he knows what he's doing. He's a very bright man, and he's deliberately manipulating this process. I've spoken with the Federal Detention Center to ask if they observed any problems with his competence, they replied, no. He simply has an anger management problem.
Second, he had previously moved to withdraw his plea of guilty. There was no legal basis for withdrawal of the plea. I had no concern whatsoever -- over about innocence for my familiarity with the case. But nonetheless, we had an evidentiary hearing, which Special Agent Finnegan reviewed in detail. The evidence against this accused. And I'm highly confident that Mr. Turner, as an officer of the Court, would on his own, come to the Court if he thought there was any miscarriage of justice in this case. Mr. Jayne, was Mr. Turner ever in touch with you in connection with his representation?
MR. JAYNE: Yes, Your Honor. Several times on the phone and also by email.
THE COURT: All right. And did Mr. Turner ask you to supply information about the case?
MR. JAYNE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And -- and -- and did you do so, sorry?
MR. JAYNE: Yes. Just for the record, I have a -- a letter of November 15th, 2023 to Mr. Turner where it's a very short letter, if I could read it. It is referring to Mr. Matthews case, criminal number twenty-two dash three two four. Dear Mr. Turner, thank you for discussing Defendant Konata Matthews case earlier today, as discussed via U.F.S.F. F.X. Dropbox, which is a Dropbox that the D.O.J. uses, please find enclosed a reproduction of the discovery -- excuse me, provided to Defendant Konata Matthews on November 8th, 2022, while he was acting pro se. In addition, I have also included other documents relevant to Mr. Matthews guilty plea and sentencing. I'm not including everything in the record. If you feel there's a need for more information, please contact me.
And I followed up with Mr. Turner after that, and he said he had received the materials, and he's also indicated to me that he reviewed the materials. And obviously he didn't tell me about this discussion with Mr. Matthews, but he relayed that Mr. Matthews requested that he not be here today, notwithstanding the fact that it was
his choice to come one way or the other, but he didn't want to aggravate Mr. Matthews or disrupt the proceedings. So he didn't -- he didn't come to court today.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Jayne. And -- and -- and so in -- in short, I find that Mr. Matthews is competent. He voluntarily and knowingly entered a plea of guilty to offenses of which he's in fact, guilty. He has been offered and declined, offered and accepted, and was given very competent legal representation, which he's now foolishly discarded. And his request now for counsel is nothing more than an attempt to delay the proceedings. And I say that having reviewed the allegations in his motion, which are flatly contradicted by the record in this case. So that would now bring us to the point where we can consider the recommended sentence. I'll note the presence of Officer Mayer from probation. Thank you for your assistance
OFFICER MAYER: Morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Filling in for Officer Danson. One technical matter before we begin, and that is under the 2023 revisions to the guidelines.
And there will be actually one lower status point according to -- to Mr. Matthews. This would be at paragraphs one sixteen and one seventeen of the presentence investigation report. However, that does not___.