×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Habeas Corpus Petitioner Convicted for False Declarations
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a habeas corpus petitioner's
conviction for two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which
criminalizes the making of false declarations before a court. The
petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in 1998,
challenging his 1993 Virginia conviction. The District Court dismissed the
petition as time barred under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA). The prisoner then filed another petition in March
2000, which was dated March 7, 1997 and notarized in Maryland on March 24,
1997. The petitioner answered "no" to the question in the petition asking
whether, "other than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and
sentence has the petitioner previously filed any other petitions,
applications, or motions with respect to this judgment in any court, state
or federal?"
Because the petitioner had not moved to file a second or successive
petition, the government filed a motion for a more definite statement
seeking the details of where the prisoner was when he delivered his
petition to prison officials and the name of the official it was given to.
The District Court granted the motion. The petitioner responded under
penalty of perjury that he gave his petition to Maryland prison officials
in March 1997 and it apparently was misplaced, so he refiled a copy. The
District Court dismissed the petition as successive and referred the
matter to the United States Attorney, since misrepresentations were
apparent.
At a bench trial it was proven the petitioner had altered the date and
place of the notary. The government proved the Notary was never a Notary
in Maryland or a Notary at all in 1997. The prisoner, on appeal, argued
his habeas petition was not a "proceeding before any Court." The Fourth
Circuit found § 1623 covers not only false oral declarations, but also
false representations made in any declaration, certificate, verification
or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under § 1746 of title
28. The court held the filing of a habeas petition commences the action
and triggers the formalities of the judicial process; in fact, it
implicates so many rules of procedure the appellate court could not
conceive how it could not be considered part of the proceeding before a
court. A habeas petition meets the formality requirements for a proceeding.
Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the conviction. See: United States
v. Johnson, 325 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2003).
conviction for two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which
criminalizes the making of false declarations before a court. The
petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in 1998,
challenging his 1993 Virginia conviction. The District Court dismissed the
petition as time barred under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA). The prisoner then filed another petition in March
2000, which was dated March 7, 1997 and notarized in Maryland on March 24,
1997. The petitioner answered "no" to the question in the petition asking
whether, "other than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and
sentence has the petitioner previously filed any other petitions,
applications, or motions with respect to this judgment in any court, state
or federal?"
Because the petitioner had not moved to file a second or successive
petition, the government filed a motion for a more definite statement
seeking the details of where the prisoner was when he delivered his
petition to prison officials and the name of the official it was given to.
The District Court granted the motion. The petitioner responded under
penalty of perjury that he gave his petition to Maryland prison officials
in March 1997 and it apparently was misplaced, so he refiled a copy. The
District Court dismissed the petition as successive and referred the
matter to the United States Attorney, since misrepresentations were
apparent.
At a bench trial it was proven the petitioner had altered the date and
place of the notary. The government proved the Notary was never a Notary
in Maryland or a Notary at all in 1997. The prisoner, on appeal, argued
his habeas petition was not a "proceeding before any Court." The Fourth
Circuit found § 1623 covers not only false oral declarations, but also
false representations made in any declaration, certificate, verification
or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under § 1746 of title
28. The court held the filing of a habeas petition commences the action
and triggers the formalities of the judicial process; in fact, it
implicates so many rules of procedure the appellate court could not
conceive how it could not be considered part of the proceeding before a
court. A habeas petition meets the formality requirements for a proceeding.
Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the conviction. See: United States
v. Johnson, 325 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
United States v. Johnson
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 325 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2003). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
United States v. Johnson, 325 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 04/09/2003)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
[2] No. 02-4425
[3] 325 F.3d 205, 2003
[4] April 09, 2003
[5] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-01-248)
[7] Counsel
[8] Argued: Frances Hemsley Pratt, Office OF The Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Cornell Wallace, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
[9] ON Brief: Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Michael S. Nachmanoff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
[10] Before Widener, Wilkinson, and Niemeyer, Circuit Judges
[11] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wilkinson, Circuit Judge
[12] PUBLISHED
[13] Argued: February 27, 2003
[14] Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Widener and Judge Niemeyer joined.
[15] OPINION
[16] Joseph Johnson, Jr. was convicted in a bench trial on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which criminalizes the making of false declarations before a court. Johnson filed two documents with the district court that contained false material declarations: a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a court ordered response to the state's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion for a more definite statement. We hold that both of the submissions constitute "proceedings before . . . any court" under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and affirm the judgment.
[17] I.
[18] On April 21, 1993, Joseph Johnson, Jr. pled guilty to unlawful entry in the Circuit Court for Arlington, Virginia. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. In April 1996, Johnson violated the terms of his probation. His previously suspended sentence was revoked, and Johnson failed to file a timely appeal.
[19] Johnson filed his first federal habeas petition challenging his 1993 conviction in September 1998 in the district court of Virginia. However, on April 24, 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), which amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to establish a one year period of limitations for the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2003). Because Johnson's state court conviction was final prior to the enactment of AEDPA, Johnson had one full year after the enactment of AEDPA, that is until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas petition. See id.; Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 1998). The district court therefore denied and dismissed his September 1998 petition as barred by the statute of limitations.
[20] Johnson then filed a second habeas petition challenging his 1993 conviction. Although the petition was not filed until March 28, 2000, it was dated March 7, 1997, and notarized by Latisha Jackson, Prince George's County, Maryland, on March 24, 1997. In the petition, Johnson was required to answer a question asking whether, "[o]ther than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, [has the petitioner] previously filed any petitions, applications, or motions with respect to this judgment in any court, state or federal?" Johnson answered "no."
[21] Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, a petitioner cannot file a second or successive habeas application without first obtaining an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing him to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2003). Because Johnson had not obtained such an order, the government moved to dismiss the petition as successive. Johnson responded that the March 2000 petition was not successive because it was actually delivered to prison authorities "as early as March, 1997" and was thus technically filed before the September 1998 petition.
[22] The state then filed a motion requesting a more definite statement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Specifically, the state requested that Johnson set forth more precise details regarding when the March 2000 petition was delivered to prison authorities, the facility where Johnson was confined when he delivered the petition, and the name of the official to whom the petition was delivered. The court granted the state's motion.
[23] Johnson submitted, under penalty of perjury, a more definite statement to the court. In it, Johnson declared that he delivered the March 2000 petition for writ of habeas corpus to prison authorities at the Prince George's County Detention Center, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, in March 1997, but that the petition was somehow misplaced. Johnson said he then refiled a copy of the March 1997 petition in March 2000.
[24] The district court rejected Johnson's argument and denied the petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In doing so, the court pointed out that after Jackson notarized Johnson's March 2000 petition, Johnson had apparently altered the date and location where the petition was filed. Johnson thereafter made sworn misrepresentations as to when and where he submitted the March 2000 petition.
[25] Due to such misconduct, the court referred the matter to the United States Attorney for appropriate action.
[26] On December 18, 2001, the United States indicted Johnson on two counts of making a false declaration in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. *fn1 Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it constituted vindictive prosecution. The court dismissed Johnson's motion as without merit.
[27] During the bench trial, the government introduced evidence indicating that in March 1997, when Johnson alleges the March 2000 petition was notarized by Latisha Jackson, Jackson was not yet a notary. The government also introduced evidence that Jackson had never been a notary in the state of Maryland, where the petition was allegedly notarized. Upon hearing this evidence, the court examined the original March 2000 petition and made specific findings that the notarial certification had been altered as to both the date and location.
[28] Despite these findings, Johnson argued that he should not be convicted under § 1623 because the filing of the habeas petition and the response to the government's 12(e) motion did not constitute "proceeding[s] before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States." The court rejected Johnson's argument and convicted him of both counts, reasoning that there can be nothing "more in a proceeding or ancillary to a proceeding than a document that actually initiates the proceeding . . . ." Johnson appeals.
[29] II.
[30] Section 1623 criminalizes the making of false declarations before a grand jury or court. Under § 1623,
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
[2] No. 02-4425
[3] 325 F.3d 205, 2003
[4] April 09, 2003
[5] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-01-248)
[7] Counsel
[8] Argued: Frances Hemsley Pratt, Office OF The Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael Cornell Wallace, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
[9] ON Brief: Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Michael S. Nachmanoff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
[10] Before Widener, Wilkinson, and Niemeyer, Circuit Judges
[11] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wilkinson, Circuit Judge
[12] PUBLISHED
[13] Argued: February 27, 2003
[14] Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Widener and Judge Niemeyer joined.
[15] OPINION
[16] Joseph Johnson, Jr. was convicted in a bench trial on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which criminalizes the making of false declarations before a court. Johnson filed two documents with the district court that contained false material declarations: a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a court ordered response to the state's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion for a more definite statement. We hold that both of the submissions constitute "proceedings before . . . any court" under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and affirm the judgment.
[17] I.
[18] On April 21, 1993, Joseph Johnson, Jr. pled guilty to unlawful entry in the Circuit Court for Arlington, Virginia. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on probation. In April 1996, Johnson violated the terms of his probation. His previously suspended sentence was revoked, and Johnson failed to file a timely appeal.
[19] Johnson filed his first federal habeas petition challenging his 1993 conviction in September 1998 in the district court of Virginia. However, on April 24, 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), which amended 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to establish a one year period of limitations for the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2003). Because Johnson's state court conviction was final prior to the enactment of AEDPA, Johnson had one full year after the enactment of AEDPA, that is until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas petition. See id.; Brown v. Angelone, 150 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 1998). The district court therefore denied and dismissed his September 1998 petition as barred by the statute of limitations.
[20] Johnson then filed a second habeas petition challenging his 1993 conviction. Although the petition was not filed until March 28, 2000, it was dated March 7, 1997, and notarized by Latisha Jackson, Prince George's County, Maryland, on March 24, 1997. In the petition, Johnson was required to answer a question asking whether, "[o]ther than a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence, [has the petitioner] previously filed any petitions, applications, or motions with respect to this judgment in any court, state or federal?" Johnson answered "no."
[21] Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, a petitioner cannot file a second or successive habeas application without first obtaining an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing him to do so. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2003). Because Johnson had not obtained such an order, the government moved to dismiss the petition as successive. Johnson responded that the March 2000 petition was not successive because it was actually delivered to prison authorities "as early as March, 1997" and was thus technically filed before the September 1998 petition.
[22] The state then filed a motion requesting a more definite statement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Specifically, the state requested that Johnson set forth more precise details regarding when the March 2000 petition was delivered to prison authorities, the facility where Johnson was confined when he delivered the petition, and the name of the official to whom the petition was delivered. The court granted the state's motion.
[23] Johnson submitted, under penalty of perjury, a more definite statement to the court. In it, Johnson declared that he delivered the March 2000 petition for writ of habeas corpus to prison authorities at the Prince George's County Detention Center, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, in March 1997, but that the petition was somehow misplaced. Johnson said he then refiled a copy of the March 1997 petition in March 2000.
[24] The district court rejected Johnson's argument and denied the petition as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In doing so, the court pointed out that after Jackson notarized Johnson's March 2000 petition, Johnson had apparently altered the date and location where the petition was filed. Johnson thereafter made sworn misrepresentations as to when and where he submitted the March 2000 petition.
[25] Due to such misconduct, the court referred the matter to the United States Attorney for appropriate action.
[26] On December 18, 2001, the United States indicted Johnson on two counts of making a false declaration in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. *fn1 Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it constituted vindictive prosecution. The court dismissed Johnson's motion as without merit.
[27] During the bench trial, the government introduced evidence indicating that in March 1997, when Johnson alleges the March 2000 petition was notarized by Latisha Jackson, Jackson was not yet a notary. The government also introduced evidence that Jackson had never been a notary in the state of Maryland, where the petition was allegedly notarized. Upon hearing this evidence, the court examined the original March 2000 petition and made specific findings that the notarial certification had been altered as to both the date and location.
[28] Despite these findings, Johnson argued that he should not be convicted under § 1623 because the filing of the habeas petition and the response to the government's 12(e) motion did not constitute "proceeding[s] before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States." The court rejected Johnson's argument and convicted him of both counts, reasoning that there can be nothing "more in a proceeding or ancillary to a proceeding than a document that actually initiates the proceeding . . . ." Johnson appeals.
[29] II.
[30] Section 1623 criminalizes the making of false declarations before a grand jury or court. Under § 1623,