Never let it be said that Claiborne Frazier is a quitter. The former J.A. quarterback and developer is currently serving a five year federal prison sentence for conspiracy to commit bank,mail, and wire fraud after he pleaded guilty in 2014. Frazier filed a motion to vacate sentence in December. He is serving his prison sentence in Florida.
Frazier claimed in his motion that his guilty plea is "constitutionally invalid since the plea was unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary." The motion also claims that Frazier was deprived of his sixth amendment rights due to his trial counsel's "deficient performance". Public defender Keith Drew represented Frazier at his guilty plea hearing although attorney Cynthia Stewart represented him at sentencing. Frazier also argues that his lawyer failed to "present evidence that some of the victims had no actual loss." Frazier is representing himself. The actual arguments made (and they are entertaining to read if one is familiar with the case.) begin on p.14 in the documents posted below. This statement from a supplement to the motion filed on February 3 argues:
The Defendant, along with three co-defendants, was charged with conspiracy to commit bank, mail and wire fraud In violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349. After a hearing on the matter, the Defendant plead guilty and was sentenced a total of sixty (60) months In prison: The Defendant believes the sentence Imposed against him was In error for several reasons, that his sentence should be vacated and the case be should remanded back to the Trial Court for further disposition, including, but not limited to, moving forward with a trial on the merits.
In this regard, the Defendant contends that from the beginning, this case has been literally a tragic comedy of errors. More specifically, the Defendant believes that the record will show (1) that from the beginning of this case, the charges against him as outlined In the grand Jury proceedings were false, misleading and substantially flawed, (2) that throughout the pendency of the matter there was no •meeting of the minds• between the parties concerning the actual amount of the loss relating to his conduct making the Imposition of his sentence Improper, (3) that the Defendant was charged with a substantial loss relating to a surety bond paid by the Travelers Insurance Company which was not, and should not, have been attributed to him which significantly increased the Guideline Sentence range, (4) that at the time of sentencing, neither the Judge nor the Defendant were fully aware of the proper facts which resulted in his sentence therefore making his plea unknowing and involuntary and (5) that certain facts suggest one of the alleged victims in the case had a direct personal and/or professional relationship with the Judge which should have caused him to consider recusing himself as required by legal and ethical rules.
On or about December 28, 2016, U,e Defendant filed his pending multi-count Motion under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2255, seeking to have his sentence vacated, in whole or in part, based on several arguments. (See Defendant's Motion to Vacate, filed December 28, 2016-Docket No.: 171). In this regard, the primary arguments advanced were that (1) The Defendant's guilty plea was invalid for several reasons, (2) that Counsel for the Defendant failed to meet the minimum standard of care at sentencing In terms of his defense strategy and that the sentence should be vacated based upon ineffective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding, (3) that the Government, through the United States Attorney's Office, failed to properly follow the terms of the plea agreement between the parties and/or violated the spirit of the agreement in whole and/or In part and (4) the Defendant was denied the opportunity to properly present evidence showing no actual loss was suffered by some of the alleged victims In his case thereby substantially Increasing his sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. (See Defendant[s] Motion to Vacate, filed December 28, 2016-Docket No.: 171, p. 4-8). This motion Is still pending, awaiting a response by U,e Court and/or the United States Attorney's Office...
In this case, the record and the facts are clear. Based upon the provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as the logic In Carr, Morrow and Moriarity, supra, the Defendant clearly did not have an a proper understanding about the nature of the plea agreement and the loss amounts that would be attributable to him. In addition, the record Is also clear that the Judge did not understand the nature of the proceeding to the point of loss amounts and Imposed a sentence Inconsistent with the proposed agreement of the parties.
Kingfish note: Frazier has been trying to reverse his guilty plea ever since he pleaded guilty. These motions are a whole bunch of sound and fury but in the end, Frazier will serve his sentence.
Collection of all posts on Frazier case.