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

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply