Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ford v. Raemisch

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 5, 2017

CHARLES K. FORD, Applicant,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents.

          ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART

          WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Applicant, Charles K. Ford, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Mr. Ford has filed pro se an amended Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 9) challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence in Denver District Court case number 08CR10514.

         On September 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ordered Respondents to file a Pre-Answer Response limited to addressing the affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and exhaustion of state court remedies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) if Respondents intend to raise either or both of those defenses in this action. On October 3, 2017, Respondents filed their Pre-Answer Response (ECF No. 14) arguing that two of Mr. Ford's claims should be dismissed. Mr. Ford has not filed a reply to the Pre-Answer Response despite being given an opportunity to do so.

         The Court must construe the amended application liberally because Mr. Ford is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss the action in part.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The following background information is taken from the opinion of the Colorado Court of Appeals on postconviction appeal.

In a city park, defendant got into a fistfight with the victim. After the fight ended and the victim was walking away, defendant acquired a gun from an acquaintance and shot the victim several times. Although initially charged with first degree murder, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of first degree assault in the shooting death of the victim. As part of the plea agreement, defendant agreed to provide truthful information and testimony about other crimes and the perpetrators of those crimes. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to limit the sentence to between thirty-five and sixty years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) and to allow the court to consider defendant's cooperation in those other cases in determining the sentence and whether to reduce the sentence on reconsideration.
Defendant's sentencing was postponed for several months to allow him to provide testimony in those other cases and to enable the court to consider his cooperation in arriving at an appropriate sentence within the stipulated range. As it turned out, however, all of those cases were resolved without the prosecution needing defendant to testify.
Before sentencing, defendant's two attorneys, Mr. Rios and Ms. Frei, filed a Crim. P. 32(d) motion to withdraw defendant's guilty plea, alleging that they had provided ineffective assistance. At the same time, they sought to withdraw as his counsel and to have alternate defense counsel appointed. The district court denied both the Crim. P. 32(d) motion and counsel's motion to withdraw, and sentenced defendant to consecutive prison terms of thirty-two years on the second degree murder conviction and twelve years on the first degree assault conviction. A division of this court affirmed the denial of defendant's Crim. P. 32(d) motion. See People v. Ford, (Colo.App. No. 10CA1090, Mar. 15, 2012) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)).
After the mandate issued following his direct appeal, defendant filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(b) motion for reconsideration of his sentence. The district court denied that motion, finding that defendant's sentence was within the range provided for in the plea agreement, was appropriate when entered, and remained appropriate.
Defendant thereafter filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) Mr. Rios promised him that his initial sentence would be cut in half on reconsideration; (2) Mr. Rios did not accurately advise him that he would have to serve seventy-five percent of his sentence before becoming parole eligible; (3) he was promised as part of the plea agreement that he would be transferred out of state, but Mr. Rios failed to require specific performance of that promise; and (4) he was coerced into pleading guilty because his attorneys failed to fully investigate the facts of the case and his self-defense claim and pressured him into accepting the plea. He also alleged that, but for counsel's deficient performance, he would not have accepted the plea, and instead, would have insisted on going to trial.
The district court, by a written order, denied the claim regarding plea counsel's failure to investigate because defendant failed to allege with specificity what investigation could have been done, what the result of such an investigation would have been, and how it would have changed his decision to plead guilty. However, the court found that defendant's remaining claims had arguable merit and appointed counsel to represent him.
A supplemental motion filed by counsel reiterated defendant's first three claims, specifically alleging that plea counsel had promised defendant he would be sentenced to thirty-five years and that the sentence would be reduced to seventeen and a half years upon reconsideration. The supplemental motion alleged that the promises made as part of the plea agreement were unenforceable and that defendant therefore should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
At the postconviction hearing, defendant, Mr. Rios, Ms. Frei, and the district attorney testified. The court denied defendant's motion by a written order. The court found credible Mr. Rios' testimony that he never promised defendant a sentence of thirty-five years or told him that it would be cut in half on reconsideration. The court also found that the plea agreement did not include a promise that defendant would serve his sentence out of state. The court noted that neither the People nor defendant's attorney had the authority to get him transferred, but that they could make a request to the DOC for such a transfer, which was completely within the DOC's discretion. Thus, the court concluded that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.