Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02108/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Olibio Nelson Topete
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2108

___________

Olibio Nelson Topete, also known as *

Grumpy, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District Iowa.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 28, 2006

Filed: April 3, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Olibio Topete appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

to vacate his drug-conspiracy conviction following a jury trial. The district court

granted a certificate of appealability on three claims that Topete was denied effective

assistance of counsel at his trial. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-2108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2006 Entry ID: 2028272
-2-

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact;

this court reviews the district court’s legal determination de novo, and its underlying

findings of fact following a hearing for clear error. See United States v. Robinson,

301 F.3d 923, 925 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1238 (2003). Upon careful

review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that counsel

had contact with Topete at least 33 times before trial, and we agree with the court that

such contact belied Topete’s claim that he was denied access to counsel. Cf. Lahay

v. Armontrout, 974 F.2d 979, 981 (8th Cir. 1992) (attorney adequately conferred with

client where client met with attorney twice and attorney had access to prior attorney’s

file, which included notes from prior attorney’s meetings with client), cert. denied,

507 U.S. 987 (1993). The district court also did not clearly err in finding that Topete

was informed of the possibility of a “straight up” plea, in which Topete could have

received a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility without any need to

cooperate with the government.

Finally, we agree with the district court that counsel was not ineffective for

failing to call potential witness Christopher McGinty, as counsel’s strategy to limit the

association between McGinty and Topete was reasonable, and another witness who

was considered more credible was to provide similar testimony. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984) (to establish ineffective-assistance

claim, movant must show deficient representation that prejudiced his case); Graham

v. Dormire, 212 F.3d 437, 440 (8th Cir. 2000) (reasonable trial strategy does not

constitute ineffective assistance).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2006 Entry ID: 2028272