Quinae Shamyra Stephens, 41, of Douglasville, Georgia, was sentenced to over 18 years (224 months) in federal prison following her conviction on multiple charges related to a multi-state identity theft and fraud scheme she operated with her son, Deandre Copes, 23. The charges included conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, identity theft, aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, and possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon.
Stephens, while on probation for previous fraud-related felonies, engaged in a series of crimes starting in late August 2021. She and her son traveled down the East Coast in a stolen U-Haul van, carrying fraudulent identities, equipment to make fake credit cards and checks, and a loaded semi-automatic handgun. Her suspicious behavior near a bank in Latta, South Carolina, led to her arrest by the Latta Police Department. A search of her van revealed numerous fraudulent identification documents, re-encoded credit cards, and debit and credit cards belonging to other individuals.
Further investigation by the Secret Service uncovered that Stephens used the dark web to download materials and software for committing credit card fraud and identity theft, including creating fake banking websites to steal information.
At sentencing, enhancements were applied for Stephens’ leadership role in the criminal enterprise and obstruction of justice. Additionally, the court heard evidence of her fraudulent acquisition of several Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Stephens’ attempt to use a sovereign citizen defense, claiming that federal courts lack jurisdiction over individuals, was rejected by the court as frivolous.
United States District Judge Sherri A. Lydon sentenced Stephens to 224 months in federal prison, followed by five years of court-ordered supervision, and ordered her to pay restitution to her victims. Stephens’ son, who testified against her, was previously sentenced to time served after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud. There is no parole in the federal system.
Her Appeal
She did not file a direct appeal following her sentencing. On August 14, 2023, she filed a motion presenting multiple grounds for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional violations.
The Details of Her Claims
Denial of Right to Due Process: She claimed her attorney failed to inform her of her right to a direct appeal. The court found that the Petitioner was advised of this right during sentencing and through subsequent letters from her attorney, but she chose not to act on it.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Regarding Sentencing Issues: She argued that her sentence was a punishment for going to trial instead of accepting a plea deal. The court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the sentence was within statutory limits and there was no indication of vindictiveness.
Failure to Object to Discriminatory Jury Selection Questions: She contended that her counsel did not object to certain questions asked during jury selection, which she deemed discriminatory. The court determined that the questions were appropriate and related to the case, with no evidence of bias.
Second Amendment Violation: The Petitioner challenged her conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), arguing it violated her Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court found no basis for this claim.
Denial of Right to Self-Representation: She claimed she was denied the right to represent herself. The court noted that the Petitioner refused to participate in a Faretta hearing and failed to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel.
Violation of the Speedy Trial Act: She argued that her trial proceedings were delayed without just cause. The court found that all delays were justified and excluded from the Speedy Trial Act’s calculation, negating this claim.
Invalid Aggravated Identity Theft Charge: The Petitioner cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dubin v. United States, asserting her aggravated identity theft charge was invalid. The court found that Dubin did not apply to her case, as her misuse of identification was central to her criminal conduct.
She also refused to refused to acknowledge the court’s jurisdiction over her, did not communicate or cooperate with her appointed trial counsel, which included refusing to meet or discuss the case, further reflecting her adherence to sovereign citizen beliefs, refused to answer the court’s questions and instead objected to the court’s jurisdiction, which led the court to conclude she had not made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel. Consequently, the court decided that her trial counsel should continue to represent her.
None of those tactics worked.
Citation for case: Stephens v. Petitioner, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116553 (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina July 1, 2024, Decided).