Archive for the ‘Ineffective assistance of counsel’ Category

The district court erred in failing to consider defendant’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

RHODE v. U.S., 583 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. September 29, 2009)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s denial of defendant’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate. The Court granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) to determine if the district court was required to address all of the claims raised in the Section 2255 motion in light of Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925, 936 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Construing the defendant’s claim liberally because it was a pro se pleading, the Court found that the defendant sufficiently raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on account of his attorney’s failure to file a motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea. The district court failed to address this claim and therefore the Eleventh Circuit court vacated the judgment and remanded it back to the district court for consideration of this claim.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Ineffective assistance of counsel, Right to counsel | No Comments »

The law of the case doctrine did not apply to argument that prior state convictions were invalid.

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

Thomas v. U.S., 2009 WL 1856048 (11th Cir. June 30, 2009)

The ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not decided by “necessary implication.”

The defendant pled guilty to drug and weapon offenses and was classified as career offender for sentencing purposes. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief on direct appeal in which he argued that defendant had no basis for appeal and requested leave to withdraw. The defendant also filed pro se motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the District Court added criminal history points incorrectly. The court stated that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered for the first time on direct appeal; and since the appellant’s claim that he was denied effective counsel was neither considered nor decided on his direct appeal, the law of the case doctrine does not bar its collateral review.

The law of the case doctrine also did not apply to argument that prior state convictions were invalid.

Similarly, neither the defendant nor his counsel presented the issue of his previous convictions on direct appeal or in the Anders brief and the government failed to cite any arguments to prove the state convictions were invalid. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s denial of relief under Section 2255 based on the application of the law of the case doctrine with respect to both the ineffective assistance of counsel issue and invalid state conviction issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Ineffective assistance of counsel, Right to counsel, Sixth Amendment | No Comments »