United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jaymar Stanton Adams, moves to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Docket 1. The
government opposes the motion and moves to dismiss. Docket
27. For the following reasons, the court grants the
government’s motion and dismisses Adams’s §
September 10, 2013, Adams was charged with conspiracy to
distribute a controlled substance. Criminal Docket (CR
Docket) 116. The fourth superseding indictment charged that
between December 1, 2008, and July 18, 2012, in South Dakota,
Adams and codefendants “did knowingly and intentionally
combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together, with
others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to knowingly and
intentionally distribute more than 100 kilograms of
marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.” Docket 216
at 1. Adams hired Randolph Daar to represent him in
California, where his property was searched. Docket 2 at 1.
Daar hired Nicole Carper, a Sioux Falls, South Dakota based
attorney, to serve as local counsel. Id. at 2.
alleges that he received a proposed plea agreement from Daar
before his plea hearing. Docket 36-1 at ¶ 3. He alleges
he was instructed to sign it and mail it back to Daar, which
he did, even though he did not understand the terms of the
plea agreement. Id.
November 12, 2013, before his change of plea hearing, Adams
met Daar and Carper outside of the courtroom. Adams alleges
that Daar and Carper had a disagreement just prior to the
change of plea hearing regarding Adams’s defense
strategy. Id. at ¶ 4. This is disputed by both
Daar and Carper. Docket 21 at 3; Docket 22 at 5. Adams
alleges that Daar told him to answer “yes” to all
of the court’s questions. Docket 36-1 at ¶ 4. Daar
alleges that he told Adams to answer the court’s
questions truthfully. Docket 21 at 3-4.
the change of plea hearing, the court asked Adams numerous
questions. CR Docket 341. Adams agreed that he discussed the
charges against him and his case in general with his lawyers,
id. at 6: 4-6, he was satisfied with his
lawyers’ representation and advice, id. at 6:
7-10, he read and discussed the plea agreement with his
lawyers, id. at 6: 12-15, he understood all of the
agreement’s terms, id. at 6: 20-22, and he
denied that anyone was forcing or coercing him into pleading
guilty. Id. at 7: 14-22. Adams said he understood
the rights he would lose if he pleaded guilty, id.
at 8: 7-9, and the possible punishments he faced.
Id. at 8: 10-9: 5.
court described Adams’s rights, including his right to
go to trial and what that would entail. Id. at 10:
21-11: 21. He said he understood that he was giving up those
rights by pleading guilty. Id. The court described
to Adams the elements of the crime the government would have
to prove if he went to trial, including that the conspiracy
to distribute a controlled substance happened in the District
of South Dakota and elsewhere. Id. at 11: 22-12: 15.
Adams admitted he understood what he was charged with and
that the government would have to prove those elements if the
case went to trial. Id.
stated that he read the factual basis statement and he
admitted everything in it was true. Id. at 12:
16-21. The court then asked Adams:
factual basis statement] says that you personally grew,
harvested, and obtained marijuana, illegally distributed
marijuana, caused marijuana to be illegally delivered and
distributed, paid others for marijuana, and received payments
for marijuana, and that you combined shipments of marijuana
with other co-conspirators.
amount that you were involved with in the activity that I
just described, was that more than a hundred kilograms of
at 12: 25-13: 8. Adams answered “yes.”
Id. at 13: 9. The court then stated, “With
that additional information, I find there is an independent
factual basis for the plea.” Id. at 13: 10-11.
the change of plea hearing, the court found that Adams was
competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that he
was aware of the charges against him, that he was aware of
the consequences of the plea, and that the plea of guilty was
voluntary. Id. at 13: 18-25.
issue of the conduct Adams was pleading guilty to came up
during his sentencing hearing. After Carper questioned the
government’s witness, a Special Agent with the
Department of Homeland Security, the court stated:
Carper, I guess I'm somewhat confused based on your
questions of Agent Scherer. You are implying all the
marijuana was for legitimate purposes.
client in Paragraph 36, the part dealing with acceptance of
responsibility, states that, “Soon the market became
flooded with marijuana and not enough dispensaries to sell
it. He decided to transport marijuana to South Dakota to sell
in order to recoup costs and to help pay the loan on the
land. He knew it was illegal to transport the marijuana
across state lines.” So I'm trying to figure out if
your client is actually accepting responsibility or not.
Because if he's now arguing all of the marijuana grown,
as shown in the greenhouses in Exhibit 3, were for legitimate
purposes, that's contrary to his statement for acceptance
341 at 26: 5-20.
responded by saying, “I in no way meant to imply or
diminish my client's acceptance of responsibility with
respect to his knowledge that marijuana that he had grown in
California had gone with his full knowledge to South Dakota,
and that's why he's here in Federal Court pleading
guilty to this charge to you.” Id. at 27:
during the sentencing hearing, the court stated that
Paragraph 17 of the Presentence Report contained the
Pfeifle and Mr. Newell helped Adams at his marijuana grow
on Thomas Road, that Sam Pfeifle cloned plants and arranged
for trimmers for harvesting, and that that marijuana was
then put into heat-sealing packages that were wiped down to
remove fingerprints, and that that was then sold as part of
this marijuana conspiracy, and that the Defendant showed up
at least once per week to check on the operation on Thomas
Id. at 29: 8-16. Adams did not object to this
information either before or during the ...