Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03507/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Lee Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-3507

________________

Gary L. Smith,

Appellant,

v.

United States of America,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: September 25, 2007

 Filed: December 4, 2007

________________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Gary Smith appeals from the final order entered in the district court1

 denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. For reversal, Smith raises multiple ineffective

assistance of counsel claims, Brady violations and an illegal search and seizure claim.

We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378450
-2-

Smith was charged with child pornography offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2251(a), 2252(a)(1), (2). Smith moved for suppression of all evidence seized from

his residences, but the district court denied his motion to suppress. United States v.

Smith, No. 02-5019-CR-SW-RED (W.D. Mo. Jan. 15, 2003). At trial, Smith

requested the appointment of new counsel claiming that his counsel was ineffective.

The district court denied the request. Smith was thereafter convicted. Prior to

sentencing, Smith again moved to dismiss counsel due to ineffective assistance, and

Smith’s attorney moved to withdraw. The motion to withdraw was granted, and new

counsel was appointed. The district court then sentenced Smith to 235 months, which

included an upward departure. 

Smith appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not appointing new

counsel at trial, in granting an upward departure and in finding that his prior

conviction for sexual abuse was related to child exploitation to trigger a fifteen year

minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d) (2000). This court affirmed the

conviction and sentence. United States v. Gary Lee Smith, 367 F.3d 748 (8th Cir.

2004). 

Smith subsequently filed this § 2255 motion alleging numerous ineffective

assistance of counsel claims, many of which were raised for the first time in his §

2255 reply brief. Additionally, Smith alleged four Brady violations and raised an

illegal search and seizure claim. 

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that Smith’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claims fail. First, the district court correctly concluded that

Smith did not establish prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 692

(1984) (“[A]ny deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial to the

defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the Constitution.”). Second,

the district court did not err in dismissing claims raised for the first time in 

Appellate Case: 06-3507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378450
2

Smith has filed a pro se motion to file a supplemental reply brief and pro se

motions to take judicial notice of numerous statements and documents. We generally

do not consider pro se briefs when an appellant is represented by counsel. See United

States v. McIntosh, 492 F.3d 956, 961 n.2 (8th Cir. 2007). We see no reason to

deviate from this practice in this case. Additionally, we deny Smith’s motion to take

judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Minn. Fed’n of Teachers v. Randall, 891

F.2d 1354, 1359-60 n.9 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (holding that we need not take

judicial notice of documents that were not part of the record before the district court).

 

-3-

a § 2255 reply brief. Hohn v. United States, 193 F.3d 921, 923-24 n.2 (8th Cir. 1999)

(declining to address claims raised for the first time in a § 2255 reply brief).

We further agree with the district court that Smith’s alleged Brady violations

and illegal search and seizure claims fail. Because Smith did not raise these claims

on direct appeal, they were procedurally defaulted. To overcome this default, Smith

must demonstrate either (1) cause for the default and actual prejudice or (2) actual

innocence. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998); United States v.

Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2001). Smith failed to make a showing of actual

prejudice or actual innocence. Therefore, the claims fail because Smith did not

overcome the procedural default. 

Accordingly, the district court judgment denying the § 2255 motion is affirmed.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2

BEAM, Circuit Judge, concurring.

I concur in the result reached by the court because I believe that Smith failed

to establish the prejudice element of any of his ineffective assistance of counsel

claims.

Appellate Case: 06-3507 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378450
-4-

I disagree, however, with the court's statement that "the district court did not err

in dismissing claims raised for the first time in a § 2255 reply brief." Ante at 2 (citing

Hohn v. United States, 193 F.3d 921, 923-24 n.2 (8th Cir. 1999)). In support of this

referenced footnote, Hohn cites United States v. Deering, 179 F.3d 592, 597 (8th Cir.

1999) (per curiam), a direct criminal appeal.

In United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc), also a direct

appeal from a federal criminal prosecution, a majority of the judges in regular active

service in this circuit, sitting en banc, permitted the United States to raise a new claim,

over objection, which claim a majority of the en banc court ultimately deemed

dispositive. This claim, not raised by the government in either the district court or in

the government's opening or reply briefs to the three-judge appellate panel, was

belatedly raised for the first time in the government's petition for rehearing en banc.

Thus, Lucas purged from this circuit's precedent the cited language from

Deering and Hohn and from all cases advancing the same proposition, making it

axiomatic that the district court should have considered the issues raised by Smith in

his reply brief to that court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3507 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/04/2007 Entry ID: 3378450