Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02037/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald LeBeaux
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

In his direct appeal to this court, LeBeaux spelled his name “LeBeau.” In this

appeal, however, he spells his name “LeBeaux.”

2

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2037

___________

Gerald LeBeaux, *

*

Petitioner-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 13, 2006

Filed: January 31, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LAY, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald LeBeaux1

 (“LeBeaux”) appeals the district court’s decision denying

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Specifically, LeBeaux claims the district court2

 erred

when it concluded he did not receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and

the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty does not deprive the United States of subject matter

jurisdiction over his case. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2037 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2006 Entry ID: 2003727
3

The Honorable Marshall P. Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

-2-

I. Background

In May 2001, LeBeaux was indicted with his son, Neil LeBeaux, for possession

with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In October

2001, LeBeaux and his son were tried jointly before a jury in the United States District

Court for the District of South Dakota. The jury found both LeBeaux and his son

guilty of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. LeBeaux was sentenced to 120

months in prison.

LeBeaux directly appealed his conviction to this court, arguing the evidence

was not sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We affirmed. United States v.

Lebeau, 44 Fed. App. 63 (8th Cir. 2002).

In August 2003, LeBeaux filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, raising eighteen issues. The district court

appointed counsel for LeBeaux and referred the matter to a magistrate judge3

 pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for the purpose of conducting any necessary hearings and

submitting proposed findings of fact and recommendations to the district court. In

May 2004, an evidentiary hearing was held regarding LeBeaux’s ineffective assistance

of counsel claims. The magistrate judge heard testimony from a deputy United States

marshal and from the attorney who represented LeBeaux at trial and on direct appeal.

In August 2004, the magistrate judge recommended that LeBeaux’s petition be denied.

In February 2005, the district court denied LeBeaux’s petition for relief under § 2255

in its entirety.

LeBeaux now appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2255 petition, arguing

the district court erred in concluding, first, that he did not receive ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel and, second, that the federal government had

jurisdiction over this case.

Appellate Case: 05-2037 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2006 Entry ID: 2003727
-3-

II. Analysis

A. Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

We first turn to LeBeaux’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.

“A district court’s decision in a habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Covey v. United States, 377 F.3d 903, 906

(8th Cir. 2004). Our court reviews the ineffective assistance of counsel issue de novo,

“but findings of underlying predicate facts are reviewed for clear error.” Id. As noted

above, LeBeaux was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal. He

argues that his counsel’s performance on appeal “was so deficient as to deprive

LeBeaux of his right to appeal,” resulting in an unreliable outcome. According to

LeBeaux, his relationship with his counsel had “collapsed” before LeBeaux’s direct

appeal to the point that “no legitimate attorney-client relationship existed.” In

addition to the general allegations of ineffectiveness LeBeaux attributes to the

breakdown in attorney-client communication, he specifically asserts his appellate

counsel was ineffective because he (1) did not appeal the district court’s denial of

LeBeaux’s motion for severance; (2) did not appeal the court’s denial of LeBeaux’s

request that no flight instruction be given; (3) failed to raise evidentiary chain of

custody concerns; and (4) allowed evidence to be introduced at trial regarding the

possibility that LeBeaux had scabies.

In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, a

defendant must establish his counsel’s representation was deficient and the deficiency

prejudiced the defense. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522 (2003) (citing Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). To establish deficient performance, a

petitioner must show his or her counsel’s representation “‘fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness.’” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 522 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S.

at 688). In the case at hand, after reviewing the record, the district court concluded

LeBeaux’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims failed because LeBeaux

did not demonstrate his counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of

Appellate Case: 05-2037 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2006 Entry ID: 2003727
-4-

reasonableness. The district court also stated LeBeaux had not shown that his defense

had been prejudiced. We agree. For the reasons articulated in the decisions of the

magistrate judge and the district court, we hold LeBeaux did not receive ineffective

assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal. 

B. Federal Jurisdiction

We next address LeBeaux’s claim that the United States did not have

jurisdiction to prosecute him under the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty (“Treaty”). This is

a question of subject matter jurisdiction, which we review de novo. United States v.

Lawrence, 51 F.3d 150, 152 (8th Cir. 1995). LeBeaux asserts the United States did

not have subject matter jurisdiction because “no notice was given to the tribe nor was

the tribe availed of the opportunity to surrender LeBeaux to the authority of the United

States.” Our court recently addressed this issue in United States v. Drapeau, 414 F.3d

869, 877 (8th Cir. 2005). In Drapeau, we held the Treaty does not deprive federal

courts of subject matter jurisdiction over federal drug trafficking cases. Id. at 878.

The same analysis applies here. Therefore, for the reasons articulated in Drapeau, we

reject LeBeaux’s claim that the United States lacked jurisdiction over this case. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons we affirm the district court’s decision denying all of

LeBeaux’s claims for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2037 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2006 Entry ID: 2003727