Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03801/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03801-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3801

___________

United States of America, *

*

Respondent - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Minnesota.

Kenneth Lloyd Robinson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Petitioner - Appellant. *

*

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2006

 Filed: March 22, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Lloyd Robinson brought this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming

that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not file a

direct appeal of his conviction. The district court1

 found that he did not instruct his

attorney to appeal his sentence and dismissed the petition. Robinson appeals, and we

affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-3801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023750
-2-

Robinson pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana under a plea

agreement indicating that the government would seek a two level role enhancement

which he could contest. After the presentence investigation report recommended a

four level role enhancement, the government moved for an evidentiary hearing to

present evidence supporting the two level enhancement contemplated in the plea

agreement. Prior to the hearing, Robinson agreed to the two level enhancement in

exchange for the government's promise to recommend a sentence at the low end of the

guideline range. By this stipulation Robinson avoided the possibility that the district

court might apply a four level enhancement after hearing the government's evidence.

The district court adopted the parties' joint recommendation and sentenced Robinson

to 78 months, the low point of the guideline range. 

Robinson filed this § 2255 petition eleven months after he was sentenced,

claiming that his attorney had been ineffective because he had not talked to him about

filing an appeal. The government responded with an affidavit from the attorney

stating that he had consulted with Robinson regarding an appeal, that he had told

Robinson about the ten day deadline for filing an appeal, and that Robinson had not

expressed an intention to appeal. Robinson replied with an affidavit contradicting his

own petition by stating that he had talked to his attorney about an appeal and had

"demanded" his lawyer appeal his sentence before the ten day deadline expired.

Whenever the written record is "inconclusive" on whether a defendant told his

attorney to file an appeal, an evidentiary hearing should be held. Holloway v. United

States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1357 (8th Cir. 1992); see also, Gomez-Diaz v. United States,

433 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (evidentiary hearing necessary where petition stated

that defendant requested an appeal but attorney responded by telling him to file § 2255

motion). 

In this case the district court decided that the conflicting affidavits required an

evidentiary hearing in order to resolve the issue of whether Robinson had in fact

instructed his attorney to file an appeal. A hearing was therefore convened, and

Appellate Case: 05-3801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023750
-3-

Robinson testified at it. According to Robinson, he told his lawyer that he "would like

[him] to appeal this sentence" right after the sentencing hearing but his attorney

counseled that there was no basis for an appeal because he "could not have gotten

anything better than this." Robinson admitted that he remained silent after hearing his

lawyer's advice, and he does not contend that he said anything further to the lawyer

about an appeal. He nevertheless argues that his lawyer should have filed an appeal

after their conversation and that the district court erred by dismissing his § 2255

petition. 

We review the district court's legal conclusions in a § 2255 proceeding de novo

and its factual findings for clear error. Barger v. United States, 204 F.3d 1180, 1181

(8th Cir. 2000). The failure of an attorney to file an appeal "after being instructed to

do so . . . constitutes ineffective assistance" even without a showing of prejudice or

likely success on appeal as required for other § 2255 petitions. Barger, 204 F.3d at

1181. Here, Robinson remained silent after being told that he had already received

the best possible outcome. He did not disagree with his lawyer's advice during that

conversation, nor did he attempt to discuss the possibility of filing an appeal with his

lawyer at some other time before the ten day deadline expired. Robinson relies on

United States v. Eli, 227 F.Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2002), where a district court held that

the defendant's silence could be construed as a request for an appeal, but each case

turns on its own facts. Robinson expressed a desire to appeal, his attorney told him

that he had already received the best possible outcome and that there was no basis for

an appeal, and Robinson said nothing then or thereafter to disagree or indicate he

wanted to file an appeal. In these circumstances we conclude that the district court did

not err by dismissing his petition or by finding that Robinson had not communicated

a request to appeal. 

Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3801 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023750