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: Anders brief, career offender, ineffective assistance of counsel, law of the case doctrine, pro se motion
