Part 2 Post conviction White Collar

Hall named four witnesses and one expert that he needed to have contacted to refute some of the allegations in the case; Mr. James Taylor, Bookeeper for RDJ Merchant Sevices, LLC, Mrs. Barbara Hall, Mr. Halls wife who had the computer information in Mr. Halls computer containing all his business records, Issa Assad, Radiant Telecom, 1020 NW 163^rd Dr. Miami, Fl. 33168,  Mike Brown a local forensic accountant, Winter Haven Florida and a Mr. David Sparks, Atlanta Ga.  (770) 394-7296 (404) 753-9685.  .  The witnesses were available for trial and had maintained regular contact with Mr. Hall throughout his incarceration, each also had been contacted by the office of the State Attorney as noted in their investigative summary (See Attached Exhibit “D”) Taylor, Sparks and Assad would have testified that Hall did in fact have contracts for the machines that he sold/leased to the alleged victims in the case.  (See Attached Exhibit “E”, a summary of the business transactions provided by Mr. Hall to Attorney Wells) They would also testify that he in fact changed machine providers (from Radiant Telecom to Blackstone) as he described in his statement to law enforcement, and in direct contradiction to the allegations he was facing.  All together, the records in his home office, the witnesses and the physical evidence would have exonerated Hall as to some or all of the counts against him.  They would show that his accounting was a personal system that he used to document his transactions, and that each alleged victim in the case was paid either dividends or earned fees in a timely matter, once the transition from Radiant Telecom to Blackstone was complete.  This would have refuted the states allegation of a Ponzi scheme, and shown that Hall did in fact have clear records of all transactions. Unfortunately, years later, when undersigned attempted to locate the records described above they were missing; either destroyed, thrown out after the divorce or left in the home after it was foreclosed upon.

                                    PETITIONER’S ATTORNEYS

Mr. Robert Hall was represented by a succession of attorney’s in this matter. Initially, the court appointed P.D. Neil Patterson, who represented Hall from December 14^th 2006 through January 22^nd, 2007 when Nicole Gaines was appointed. She remained on the case until July 25^th, 2007 when attorney John Radabaugh took over until March 11, 2008. He withdrew after seeking a court paid expert on business accounting. Then the newly created Regional Counsel’s office was appointed in the person of Ginger Dunn, who stayed on the case until she left that office to go into private practice four months later.  She was replaced by Autumn Matthews. The case was taken over by Matthew Wells who was appointed on March 5^th, 2009. Mr. Hall and his wife spent significant time describing the facts relating to the case to their various attorney’s. 

Mr. Patterson did not respond to this request but Mr. Gaines did review the list prepared of the issues that Mr. Hall wished to be addressed. By now Hall and his wife were divorcing and there was a chance the evidence would not be preserved. Specifically, Hall was concerned about his personal files from his home office (located on a hard-drive), and with the vending machines stored in his garage (or preserving them photographically), and of course, contacting the witnesses he listed as they would possess copies of his stores and the locations of each vending unit, plus the contracts with each company.  How did this come about? Gaines promised to gather the discovery requested by Hall, but left the case and transferred the file to the Office of Regional Counsel.  Hall repeated his requests with Ginger Dunn, always being assured that the matters were in hand.  When Autumn Matthews met with Hall, she had no records on the topic she claimed. Later after she too went into private practice and the case was taken over by Mr. Wells, he also promised to contact the witnesses and gather the information, but failed to do so instead promising that he had a guaranteed deal.

An attorney has an obligation to investigate issues raised by their client’s. In Nelson, the supreme court effectively overturned the ruling in Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999), which had reduced the requirements for pleading such claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In Gaskin, the court declared a movant was not required to name the witnesses or describe the expected testimony in order to have a legally sufficient claim. 737 So. 2d at 514 n.10. Shortly thereafter, Nelson recognized the mistake made in Gaskin, declaring the footnote in Gaskin was “overbroad” and returned to the standard that a movant must, at the very least, name the witnesses and describe the testimony that would have been adduced had the witnesses been called, showing how counsel’s failure to call, interview, or present the witnesses prejudiced the case. Nelson, 875 So. 2d at 582-83.

The court should  note that Reaves v. State, 826 So. 2d 932, 940 (Fla. 2002), also recognized that a motion for post-conviction relief that does not “indicate what favorable information defense counsel could have elicited from these witnesses, nor . . . show how [defendant] was prejudiced” is legally insufficient.

In Frazier, the 2^nd DCA concluded that Nelson required the trial court to, sua sponte, grant leave to the defendant to re-file the motion if it does not contain all of the necessary allegations. 912 So. 2d at 56 (citing Mulvaney v. State, 885 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)).

            Ground 2:      Trial counsel promised the Petitioner that he would receive a sentence of Eight Years in Florida state prison, to run concurrent to his existing sentence.

Mr. Wells only saw Mr. Hall at Pre-trial conference on two occasions, before he came to the jail with a plea offer to be discussed.  Hall questioned Wells about the discovery that has occurred to date; whether there existed depositions, or if the matters he had requested be investigated had been accomplished.  Hall stated he still wanted to go to trial and was adamant that with the witnesses involved he could show that he was not guilty of at least some of the allegations. Wells stated that he believed that a plea was in Halls best interest, and that the state had made an offer for prison time, but did not relay the details of the offer.  Hall presumed it was the same offer relayed by Autumn Matthews, which was ten years in prison, followed by 15 years of probation, a plea that also involved the then pending violation of probation out of Highlands County. Much later, undersigned found documentation that the offer was for 8.5 years in Florida state prison.  As Hall had just received that amount of time in Highlands County he would have absolutely accepted the deal.  (See Attached Affadavit “B”)

Instead, Wells relayed an offer that required Hall to plea straight up to two counts, an offer that required him to have a sentencing hearing.  Wells informed Hall that he felt that this option would result in a better sentence due to his own relationship with the Judge and his sister Deborah Wells relationship.  Wells never relayed the offer of 8.5 years and never relayed to Hall that the offer was to be run concurrently with the Highlands sentence Hall was serving at the time. Nor did Wells ever inform Hall that the Department of Corrections always ran sentences consecutively unless ordered by the court and that the court would have discretion in the sentencing in this case.

Hall would have immediately accepted a concurrent offer had it been relayed.  Hall would have accepted an offer that was concurrent if he had known that Judge Carpanini had discretion to run sentences consecutively, because Hall believe Carpanini was unhappy with him, hence his request to have him disqualified. 

            Ground 3:      Trial counsel failed to consult with the court-appointed forensic accountant to explain and advice Petitioner of the elements of the offense so as to adequately explain his legal rights

            Ground 4:      Trial counsel did not seek to disqualify the sentencing Judge despite the Judge being angry with the Petitioner.

The Court repeatedly expressed displeasure with the Petitioner relating to the long delays that the Petitioner experienced getting his case resolved.  The Judge appeared to be unfair in this matter.  The Judge appeared to blame the Petitioner for the delays that his attorneys caused. A brief summary of the extraordinary facts of this case follows: 

Mr. Hall was arrested on December 6^th, 2006.  He was continuously detained in the Polk County jail until the date of his sentencing on June 22, 2009.  During that time he was represented by a series of court appointed attorneys, each eventually withdrawing from his case due to either job changes or because the attorney determined that they were not competent to handle a white-collar case of this complexity.  No attorney ever withdrew due to a conflict with Mr. Hall.  His attorneys were as follows:

Initially, the court appointed P.D. Neil Patterson, who represented Hall from December 14^th 2006 through January 22^nd, 2007 when Nicole Gaines was appointed. She remained on the case until July 25^th, 2007 when attorney John Radabaugh took over until March 11, 2008. He withdrew after seeking a court paid expert on business accounting. Then the newly created Regional Counsel’s office was appointed in the person of Ginger Dunn, who stayed on the case until she left that office for private practice. The case was transferred to Autumn Matthews who also had the case until she left for private practice. The case was taken over by Matthew Wells who was appointed on March 5^th, 2009. 

Not once did the Petitioner seek to delay his case or dismiss one of his trial counsel, yet at each Pre-trial hearing the court expressed anger and distress over the case’s slow progress.

The court’s anger and frustration were clearly evinced when it elected to more than double the proposed guidelines sentence anticipated by the parties in the case.