Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07071/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07071-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernon Lee Branham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FI LED 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuir 

TENTH CIRCUIT M.L\Y 2 8 1991 

-----------f!\.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

VERNON LEE BRANHAM, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 90-7071 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-161-S) 

( E . D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant, Vernon Lee Branham, appeals from the 

dismissal of his habeas petition, 28 u.s.c. S 2255, and the denial 

of his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Branham was 

convicted of two counts of mailing an explosive with intent to 

injure, 18 u.s.c. S 1716; two counts of possession of an 

unregistered destructive device, 26 u.s.c. S 5861(d); and two 

counts of manufacturing a destructive device, 26 u.s.c. S 5861(f). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. See 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and record on appeal, the panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the disposition of this case. The case therefore is 

ordered submitted on the briefs. 

Appellate Case: 90-7071 Document: 010110116667 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 1 
, We affirmed his conviction in United States v. Branham, No. 

88-1487, unpub. order, (10th Cir. July 3, 1989). 

Branham now seeks collateral relief pursuant to§ 2255 

claiming that pretrial, trial and appellate counsel were 

ineffective and failed to raise a variety of other constitutional 

claims. 1 The government responded that defendant had four 

attorneys through trial and appeal and had not overcome the strong 

presumption that counsel's performance was deficient. IR. doc. 

2. In so responding, the government did not mention defendant's 

other constitutional claims, let alone address them in the context 

of the ineffectiveness claim. The magistrate judge determined 

that Branham had not been denied effective assistance of counsel 

at trial and he could not raise his other claims collaterally 

because he failed to raise them on direct appeal. The district 

court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissed Branham's petition. IR. docs. 5 & 8. The district 

court also determined that this appeal was not taken in good faith 

and denied Branham leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 

IR. doc. 10. Branham appeals both of these orders. 

First, we must address Branham's motion to proceed on appeal 

in forma pauperis. See 28 u.s.c. S 1915(a); Fed. R. App. P. 

1 Defendant asserts that his trial was fundamentally unfair 

because of several constitutional errors. These include, inter 

alia, claims that (1) evidence was obtained through a warrantless 

search of his property; (2) he was identified in a lineup by 

postal workers who had been previously shown his photo; (3) he was 

denied exculpatory evidence; (4) he was questioned after invoking 

his right to counsel; (4) he was denied compulsory process to 

obtain witnesses; and (5) he was convicted with known perjured 

testimony. IR. doc. 1. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7071 Document: 010110116667 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 2 
1 

24(a); 10th Cir. R. 24.1. The district court concluded that 

Branham's appeal was not taken in good faith. We disagree. 

Branham's brief presents a reasoned argument on the law and the 

facts. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962). 

While we express no opinion on the merits, Branham raises several 

arguable points in favor of his position. Consequently, we grant 

Branham's motion to appeal in forma pauperis. See Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-27 (1989). 

Branham was required to show cause for failing to raise his 

other constitutional claims and actual prejudice. United States 

v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). He claims that the cause 

of his procedural default is ineffective assistance of counsel at 

trial and on appeal. We note that a defendant is entitled to 

effective counsel at both levels. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 

387, 397 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 

(1984). Here, Branham's other constitutional claims are linked to 

his ineffectiveness claim, yet neither the government, nor 

magistrate judge, nor the district court addressed these claims in 

the context of the ineffectiveness claim. 

We recently held that ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims normally will be resolved in collateral proceedings. 

Beaulieu v. United States, 930 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1991). One of 

our concerns was the development of a sufficient record concerning 

"the tactical reasons for trial counsel's decisions, the extent of 

trial counsel's alleged deficiencies, and the asserted prejudicial 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7071 Document: 010110116667 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 3 
• 

impact on the outcome of any trial. 112 Id. slip op. at 3. See 

also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 (court must evaluate whether 

identified acts and omissions were within range of competence) & 

at 697 (identified acts or omissions may not be error or 

prejudicial error). In Beaulieu, we recognized "a narrow 

subcategory" of ineffectiveness claims that might be barred 

collaterally: "where the defendant is no longer represented by 

trial counsel and it is evident that resolution of the 

ineffectiveness claim would not be substantially aided by further 

development of the record." Id. slip op. at 4. Here, the 

district court decision does not discuss Branham's other 

constitutional claims in the context of the alleged 

ineffectiveness. In view of supervening authority, it is 

appropriate to vacate the district court's dismissal of the 

petition and remand for reconsideration in light of Beaulieu. 

VACATED and REMANDED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

2 Though unfamiliar to us, Branham's claims may not be 

unfamiliar to his lawyers. Branham maintains that he requested 

both retained and court-appointed counsel to raise all of the 

issues he now raises collaterally, but they declined. IR. doc. 1 

at 8. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7071 Document: 010110116667 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 4