Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01276/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01276-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1276

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Robert Leroy Willson, Sr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2004

Filed: December 9, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Leroy Willson, Sr. pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the

district court1

 sentenced him, in accordance with the plea agreement, to 180 months

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Willson did not appeal, but filed a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

Willson appeals, having been granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of

ineffective assistance of counsel, and we affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-1276 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2004 Entry ID: 1842705 
-2-

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and the

ineffective-assistance finding de novo. See Barger v. United States, 204 F.3d 1180,

1181 (8th Cir. 2000). To establish his counsel was ineffective, Willson needed to

demonstrate that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that he suffered

prejudice as a result. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In the

context of a guilty plea, Willson needed to show there was a reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have

insisted on going to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Willson also

needed to overcome “strong presumptions” of counsel’s competence and the

voluntariness of his guilty plea based on his representations during the plea colloquy.

See Ramey v. United States, 8 F.3d 1313, 1314 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).

Having reviewed the record, we find Willson’s claims of deficient performance

by his plea and post-plea attorneys were refuted by the attorneys’ hearing testimony,

which the district court credited, and we find no clear error in the district court’s

factual findings. Willson did not show that his plea was involuntary or induced by

his attorney’s deficient performance, or that he instructed his attorney to file a direct

appeal. See Green v. United States, 323 F.3d 1100, 1102-03 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding

no clear error in district court’s finding that movant was not credible and did not

request appeal; district court’s credibility determinations are accorded deference).

Nor did Willson establish his counsel was remiss in advising him there were no

grounds to withdraw the plea, to appeal, or to seek section 2255 relief. See Rodriguez

v. United States, 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (counsel not

ineffective for failing to raise meritless challenge). 

Finally, to the extent the issue is properly before us, Willson has not alleged

or shown how he was prejudiced by his telephonic presence at the hearing on his

motion to vacate, and “[a] court may entertain and determine such motion without

requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Appellate Case: 04-1276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2004 Entry ID: 1842705 
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Willson’s motion

to supplement the record is denied. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1276 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2004 Entry ID: 1842705