US Court Officially Denies Staley’s Feeble Attempt to Rescind Guilty Plea and Challenge Constitution

Court_RespondJimStaley
Hon. Richard E. Webber Senior US District Judge (Left), Jim Staley USP Marion Inmate #41812-044 (Right). Image courtesy http://stlouisbarfoundation.org/legal-legacies/

Senior US District Judge Richard E. Webber has formally denied Staley’s Constitutional Challenge to Statute and Motion to Intervene, asserting that Staley’s sovereign citizen tactics are “routinely rejected by courts as meritless”, citing several examples of such.

He then goes on to reject Staley’s request to rescind his plea, pointing out how the law prohibits him for three reasons:

1.  Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) states “[a]fter the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty.

2. It  was past the fourteen days allowed to file an appeal.

3. Staley waived his rights to appeal when he pled guilty.

Here is the denial letter in full:

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s),  vs.  JAMES STALEY, Defendant(s).
Case No. 4:14CR00153 ERW
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant James Staley’s Notice of Constitutional Challenge to Statute and Motion to Intervene [ECF No. 119].
The Court’s understanding of Defendant James Staley’s (“Defendant”) Notice is he requests to rescind his guilty plea, challenges the constitutionality of various criminal statutes and the sentencing guidelines, and asserts his constitutional rights were violated. Defendant also requests a trial be set for November 16, 2015, to address the constitutionality of these statutes. Defendant challenges these statutes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 5.1 and 24.
First, it appears, in challenging the constitutionality of various criminal statutes, Defendant is arguing the Court does not have jurisdiction over him because he is claiming to be a sovereign citizen. This argument has been routinely rejected by courts as meritless. See United States v. Hardin, 489 Fed. Appx. 984, 986 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990), United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749, 750 (8th Cir. 1983). The specific grounds for Defendant’s motion are also meritless. The FRCP do not apply to criminal cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Additionally, FRCP 5.1 does not apply against the United States and Defendant cannot intervene in a case in which he is already a party under FRCP 24.
Further, Defendant cannot rescind his guilty plea. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e) states “[a]fter the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty . . Case: 4:14-cr-00153-ERW Doc. #: 124 Filed: 11/06/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 445 . and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.” If Defendant intended this to be a notice of appeal, it is past the fourteen days allowed to file an appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Additionally, Defendant waived his rights to appeal when he pled guilty. See ECF No. 80, pg. 10.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant James Staley’s Notice of Constitutional Challenge to Statute and Motion to Intervene [ECF No. 119] is DENIED.
So Ordered this 6th day of November, 2015.
_________________________________________ E. RICHARD WEBBER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
We will keep you updated as this story progresses.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s