Pillault v. United States

Citation: 371 F. Supp. 3d 325Docket: No. 3:12CR131-MPM-JMV

Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi; April 4, 2019; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Joshua Brandon Pillault's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been considered by the court, which has denied the motion. The writ of habeas corpus, a fundamental legal remedy in both English and American law, allows individuals to challenge their detention's legal basis, with constitutional protections against suspension except in cases of rebellion or invasion. The federal courts' authority to issue habeas corpus was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has evolved through various legislative changes, particularly the significant restrictions introduced by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Under § 2255, a federal inmate may seek to vacate or correct a sentence based on four grounds: constitutional violations, lack of jurisdiction, sentences exceeding statutory maximums, or other grounds for collateral attack. A prisoner must establish either a constitutional violation or jurisdictional defect to invoke this statute. If no such defects are present, relief may only be granted for fundamental errors resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The district court must conduct an initial review of the motion; if it is clear that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the motion is dismissed. If a non-frivolous claim is presented, the court will require a government response and may expand the record or permit limited discovery as needed, ultimately determining whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.

An evidentiary hearing is mandated under 28 U.S.C. 2255(b) unless the motion and case records convincingly demonstrate that the prisoner is not entitled to relief. A hearing is not required if the prisoner does not provide independent evidence supporting the merit of their claims. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, who must establish claims of error by a preponderance of the evidence. Certain structural errors warrant automatic relief, while other trial errors require a showing that the error had a substantial and injurious effect on the case's outcome. If relief is granted, the court must vacate the judgment and may discharge, resentence, or order a new trial for the prisoner.

Joshua Pillault presents four claims alleging violations of his rights. He contends that his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was breached due to lack of legal representation during a search, ineffective assistance from his public defender, being misled by his attorney, and being coerced into a guilty plea. He asserts actual innocence and claims his attorney's cross-examination during sentencing was inadequate. 

Pillault also argues that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by coercion from arresting officers and ineffective legal advice that left him feeling defenseless. His First Amendment claim centers on censorship of his online expression, claiming that only a parental figure could restrict his speech and that threats were protected speech. Finally, he claims a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights due to the search of his home and lack of a pre-arrest interview to establish facts.

The factual background highlights that on October 4, 2012, while playing 'RuneScape,' Pillault made threats to commit mass violence at Oxford High School, expressing intentions to use firearms and explosives, and referenced the Columbine massacre. He indicated a need for weapons and explicitly stated plans for violence, marking a significant concern regarding public safety.

Pillault made explicit threats, including intentions to commit violence, stating, "I can't wait to blow brains out of skulls," while communicating these threats through the online game 'RuneScape.' Two former girlfriends, Jane Doe and Susan Roe, testified regarding these threats. Doe reported that Pillault, while intoxicated, discussed plans to execute these threats both sober and drunk. Roe confirmed that Pillault had researched bomb-making techniques and had acquired materials, such as a copper pipe from Home Depot, which he claimed could be used to create a pipe bomb. He also advised Roe to stay home on April 20, 2013, the anniversary of the Columbine shooting. Doe further revealed that Pillault was attempting to save money for a firearm and had experimented with making Molotov cocktails. Both women indicated that Pillault had begun to formulate concrete plans for a school shooting, including strategies to attack the school cafeteria and principal. They felt threatened by Pillault, who warned Roe against reporting him. Both women noted his obsession with the Columbine shooters and his belief that school shootings could be morally justified. 

On October 4, 2012, the Oxford Police Department received reports of Pillault's threats from players of 'RuneScape' and Jagex Ltd, which provided the police with account details linked to Pillault's mother's computer in Oxford, Mississippi. Officer Harper Thomas expressed concern for student safety based on Pillault's history of impulsive behavior and anger issues. Following this, security was heightened at the Oxford High School football game, and an FBI arrest warrant was issued for Pillault on October 8, 2012. Pillault was arrested that same day and admitted to using the 'PaulGilbert(merlan91)' display name while playing 'RuneScape' on the day of the threats.

Pillault admitted to police that he likely authored threats he could not recall due to intoxication and acknowledged attempting to download the game 'Super Columbine Massacre RPG,' which simulates the Columbine shooting. During his arrest, the FBI executed a search warrant, seizing four laptops and two cell phones, including the computer Pillault used. An FBI computer examiner discovered a '4chan' folder on Pillault's computer containing images related to the Columbine shooting, folders titled 'columbine' and 'serialkiller,' and files with bomb-making instructions. Pillault's internet search history included terms related to bomb-making and the Columbine shooting, as well as searches on YouTube and Wikipedia about explosives and firearms.

A psychiatric evaluation ordered by the court found Pillault to be intelligent but troubled, previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance abuse issues. The psychologist concluded he was competent to stand trial and not a danger to himself or others, despite not fully understanding the legal implications of online threats. 

On October 25, 2012, Pillault was indicted on two counts: one for transmitting threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) and another for threats involving explosives under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). He later reached a plea agreement on June 20, 2013, pleading guilty to the second count, facing potential penalties of 10 years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and supervised release. A Presentence Investigation Report assigned Pillault an offense level of 15, based on the Sentencing Guidelines, which was reduced for acceptance of responsibility. His criminal history category was classified as I, due to a prior marijuana possession conviction.

Pillault was assigned a total offense level of 15 and a criminal history category of I, resulting in a Sentencing Guideline incarceration range of 18 to 24 months. While in custody, he created personal notes and illustrations, which were seized after a cellmate alerted authorities. Although many of these works contained innocuous content, a significant number featured violent imagery, including depictions of guns, suicide, and graphic violence against women. Some writings explicitly detailed acts of rape, torture, and murder, often directed at his ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe, with threats of violence included.

Dr. Heather Ross conducted a psychiatric evaluation at the court's request and determined that Pillault had a long history of substance abuse, including alcohol and marijuana. His daily routine involved heavy drug and alcohol consumption. Dr. Ross noted Pillault's preoccupation with death and violence, including fantasies about the Columbine shooting. She assessed that his risk for future dangerousness was moderate to high if he continued substance abuse, but this risk could be significantly lowered if he remained sober.

During the March 6, 2014 sentencing hearing, Pillault objected to a 6-level increase in his offense level due to conduct reflecting intent to execute threats. Testimonies from Doe and another witness detailed his planning of violent acts, including pipe bombs and gun purchases. In contrast, Pillault denied the allegations, claiming that his violent expressions were merely "trolling" or jokes made while under the influence.

The court found the testimonies of Doe and Roe more credible than that of Pillault, dismissing his objection to a 6-level sentencing enhancement under section 2A6.1(b)(1), based on evidence that Pillault had attempted to carry out a threat. He was sentenced to 72 months of incarceration, which deviated from the Sentencing Guidelines due to public safety concerns. Pillault contested this upward variance, arguing it was intended to facilitate his access to drug and psychological treatment. The court clarified that the sentence length was imposed solely for public protection, although it acknowledged the request for treatment. A psychiatric evaluation indicated that Pillault's risk of future violence could be mitigated if he remained sober; however, his sobriety history was unclear. Pillault appealed the enhancement and variance, both of which were upheld by the Fifth Circuit. He subsequently filed a 2255 motion to vacate and was released into supervised custody on February 9, 2018. His supervised release was revoked on July 26, 2018, with a tentative release date of July 13, 2019.

Pillault's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel follows the Strickland v. Washington two-prong test, requiring him to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency caused prejudice to his defense. Under the deficiency standard, he must show that his attorney's errors were serious enough to undermine the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. The court will evaluate counsel's actions based on the context at the time rather than with hindsight. To establish prejudice, Pillault must prove that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different or that the attorney's performance made the proceedings fundamentally unfair. The standard for evaluating counsel's performance is deferential, focusing on whether there is any reasonable argument that the defense met Strickland's requirements.

To establish prejudice from ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, Pillault must demonstrate that he would have chosen to go to trial but for his attorney's deficiencies. This standard requires showing a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, he would not have pleaded guilty (Hill v. Lockhart). The motion reveals no supporting evidence for Pillault’s claim of attorney errors affecting his decision to plead guilty. Contrary to Pillault's assertion, his counsel raised multiple issues on appeal, including objections to sentencing enhancements and the reasonableness of the sentence, which are valid arguments despite their failure to succeed. Counsel's decision to advise a guilty plea was reasonable, as proceeding to trial could have resulted in a maximum sentence of fifteen years, while the plea agreement capped it at ten years. The court sentenced Pillault to 72 months, influenced by the government's motion for an upward variance, which was beyond counsel's control. Pillault was aware that sentencing was at the court's discretion and that no specific sentence agreement existed. He has not demonstrated that he would have opted for trial had his counsel acted differently. Effective representation requires a realistic assessment of the case's prospects rather than an overly optimistic outlook. Counsel is not obligated to raise every conceivable argument on appeal.

Mr. Pillault expressed his intention to plead guilty during the plea hearing, indicating he was factually guilty and satisfied with his legal representation. His sworn statements in court carry a strong presumption of truthfulness, as established by case law. He confirmed under oath that he had discussed his case with his counsel and was content with their representation. Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were deemed insufficient as they lacked supporting evidence; the court emphasizes that general claims do not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, it was noted that Pillault's counsel had thoroughly reviewed the Presentence Report (PSR) and raised objections during sentencing and on appeal.

Pillault's claim of ineffective assistance due to the absence of counsel during a home search was dismissed as frivolous, as he was not under arrest or in custody at that time, and the right to counsel only attaches once adversarial proceedings have begun. During the plea hearing, he acknowledged the uncertainty of his sentence and that the government could seek an upward variance, which does not reflect deficient performance by counsel. 

Evidence against Pillault included testimonies from multiple former girlfriends who reported his plans to commit violence at a school. The court found these witnesses credible but recognized that evidence did not demonstrate Pillault's capability to execute his plans. Ultimately, despite mitigating arguments from his counsel, the court imposed a 72-month sentence, which exceeded the sentencing guidelines due to the government’s motion for upward variance. Pillault’s counsel actively defended him and preserved critical issues for appeal.

Mr. Pillault has failed to satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test, as his defense counsel performed effectively against a strong prosecution case. He did not demonstrate that counsel's performance resulted in prejudice, as the overwhelming evidence against him would likely have led to a conviction had he chosen to go to trial. By pleading guilty, Pillault avoided additional charges and a harsher sentence, receiving a three-point reduction in his offense level for accepting responsibility. His claims of ineffective assistance, including failure to visit him in pretrial detention, inadequate cross-examination during sentencing, and not leveraging the accuser's potential non-testimony, were unfounded. There is no obligation for counsel to visit defendants in jail, and the record indicates that defense counsel actively cross-examined government witnesses. The prosecution had sufficient evidence for conviction regardless of one witness's testimony. Furthermore, Pillault's assertion that his due process rights were violated due to alleged coercion by arresting officers in waiving his right to counsel lacks substantiation and fails to present a constitutional issue in a habeas proceeding. His claim that his attorney's advice to plead guilty was flawed is also without merit, as pleading guilty inherently waives certain constitutional rights but does not violate due process.

Guilty pleas, when made with appropriate understanding, allow for constitutional case resolution without trial, preserving due process rights. Mr. Pillault acknowledged the relinquishment of his rights upon pleading guilty, and his attorney's advice to plead was justified given the government's strong case. His claim of ineffective counsel lacks merit, as he cannot demonstrate deficiency or prejudice under the Strickland standard.

Regarding his First Amendment rights, Mr. Pillault contends that only a parental figure can censor his online expressions, asserting that his threats of violence are protected speech. However, the government can regulate certain types of speech, including true threats. In evaluating the nature of his threats—specifically to blow up Oxford High School and harm individuals—there is no political context, humor, or conditionality present, unlike the case in Watts v. United States, where the speech was political and not taken seriously. In contrast, his statements, which included explicit intentions to commit violence and references to the Columbine shooting, were deemed serious and credible, prompting concern from the audience. 

True threats are defined by the speaker's intention to convey a serious intent to commit violence, which can be restricted under the First Amendment to prevent fear and potential violence. The evidence indicates that Mr. Pillault indeed planned to execute these threats, thus falling outside the realm of protected speech.

Intimidation is classified as a true threat when a speaker deliberately threatens an individual or group, intending to instill fear of bodily harm or death. In this case, Pillault's threats to carry out a shooting and bombing at Oxford High School qualify as true threats, aimed at creating fear among listeners. His history of similar threats to past girlfriends indicates a pattern of intimidation, undermining any claim that his comments were merely jokes. Consequently, these comments do not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, warranting denial of his claim on its merits.

Pillault also argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to a lack of pre-search interview. This claim is unfounded, as there is no constitutional right to such an interview prior to a home search. The arrest and search were executed under legally issued warrants based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be reasonable and that warrants specify the scope of search based on established probable cause.

The search of Pillault's home and the seizure of his computers were justified. Reports from a concerned citizen and the game developer, who provided evidence of Pillault's threats, traced back to his home. The school resource officer, familiar with Pillault's violent tendencies, deemed him a credible threat. Therefore, the issuance of the arrest and search warrants was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, aiming to prevent potential harm to students.

A search of Pillault's home and seizure of his computer were deemed necessary to confirm that threats originated from him. His assertion that law enforcement should have allowed him to explain himself before the search is dismissed as frivolous, given that officers reasonably suspected he was armed and potentially posed a danger to schoolchildren. His claim of actual innocence is also considered frivolous; he has not provided evidence to counter the government's proof against him. At his plea hearing, Pillault admitted guilt and acknowledged the factual basis for his plea. Consequently, all of his claims lack merit, and his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence will be denied. A final judgment will be issued consistent with this opinion. The court has referenced uncontested facts provided by the government and has chosen not to disclose the names of the young girls involved in the case.