Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03257/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03257-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3257

___________

Quintin L. Brown, *

*

Movant Below - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Respondent - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2006

Filed: April 26, 2006 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Quintin L. Brown challenges his conviction and the sentence imposed by the

district court1

 under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his counsel was ineffective. 

Brown’s § 2255 motion sought relief on a number of grounds, all of which were

denied by the district court without an evidentiary hearing. We granted a certificate

of appealability on two issues: whether Brown sufficiently alleged he was prejudiced

Appellate Case: 04-3257 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037414
-2-

by counsel’s advice as to the sentence he faced at trial and whether counsel’s

performance in determining Brown’s potential sentencing exposure was

constitutionally deficient. 

Brown argues the district court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing on

his ineffective assistance claim. Under § 2255, a defendant is entitled to an

evidentiary hearing unless “the motion and the files and the records of the case

conclusively show that the [defendant] is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We

review a district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Ledezma-Rodriguez, 423 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2005).

In order to determine whether to remand for an evidentiary hearing, we must conduct

a de novo review of the district court’s legal conclusion Brown’s ineffective assistance

claim is without merit. Id.

A meritorious ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a defendant to

establish counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness

and but for such deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been

different. Id. The defendant bears the burden to overcome the strong presumption of

reasonableness of counsel’s performance. Becht v. United States, 403 F.3d 541, 545

(8th Cir. 2005).

Brown alleged his counsel’s performance was deficient because counsel

incorrectly informed Brown of his potential sentencing exposure resulting from a

guilty plea. Brown alleges his counsel informed him he would face a maximum of

approximately 132 months of imprisonment if he went to trial. Brown alleges he

would have accepted the government’s plea agreement had he known he might be

sentenced to 293 months, as he was, if he went to trial. Brown further alleges counsel

informed him of the weakness of the government’s case and the likelihood of defense

success at trial and such advice also induced him to go to trial. 

Appellate Case: 04-3257 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037414
-3-

In order to prevail on his § 2255 motion, Brown must establish the district court

erred in concluding his ineffective assistance claim was without merit and abused its

discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. Brown cannot do so. Brown relies upon

two unsworn affidavits for his factual allegations supporting his claim of ineffective

assistance, yet informed the district court he never entertained the idea of a guilty plea

and repeatedly claimed innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted. No

evidentiary hearing is required when “the allegations cannot be accepted as true

because they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions

rather than statements of fact.” Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 240 (8th Cir.

1995). Further, the district court relied upon a sworn affidavit and other evidence

provided by counsel establishing counsel’s calculations were estimates made prior to

the withdrawal of the government’s plea offer and counsel’s attempts to have Brown

plead guilty. Brown disputes neither the revocation of the plea offer nor counsel’s

claim the revocation was based upon facts, of which Brown was aware, which

increased Brown’s potential sentence. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err by determining the files and records

of the case conclusively show Brown is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(providing no evidentiary hearing is required when the files and records of the case

conclusively establish the defendant is not entitled to relief); Chesney v. United States,

367 F.3d 1055, 1060 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding no error in district court’s denial of a §

2255 motion when the defendant adamantly argued his innocence and failed to

establish he would have accepted a plea offer despite counsel’s failure to communicate

a plea offer to the defendant); Sanders v. United States, 341 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir.

2003) (holding the failure to establish defendant would have accepted the plea is fatal

to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon defendant’s decision to go to

trial rather than plead guilty); Cheek v. United States, 858 F.2d 1330, 1336 (8th Cir.

1988) (holding the failure to establish counsel gave unreasonable 

Appellate Case: 04-3257 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037414
-4-

advice is fatal to an ineffective assistance claim). We therefore affirm the district

court.

_________________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3257 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/26/2006 Entry ID: 2037414