NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0309n.06 F iled: April 28, 2009 No. 07-6278 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. ME L VI N JAR VI S, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, CO OK , a nd G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALAN E . NORRIS, Circuit Judge. A g ra nd jur y ind ic te d M e lvi n Jar

vis on fi ve c ounts , a ll relating to the distribution of cra ck coc aine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He moved to c ontinue the tr ia l on the mor

nin g that it

wa s se t to be g in, and

the dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d th is m oti on . F a c e d w ith this denial, he plea ded g uilty to all five counts. He moved to withdraw that plea 37 day s later, whic h the district court a lso denied. On a ppeal, he challeng es the district cour t’s denial of both his motion to continue and his motion to withdraw his g uilty plea. He also adds a c laim of ineff ective a ssistance of c ouns e l. F or

the fo llo wi ngre a so ns we a ff ir m th e dis tr ict cou rt ’s de nia l of Jar vis ’ m oti on s to continue and w ithdraw his plea, a nd dismiss his ineffe ctive assistanc e cla im as prematur e.

I. The fa ct u al b ackgr ound of this case is not relevant to this appea l. The per tinent leg al pr oc e e din g s c omm e nc e d whe n a g ra nd jur y re tur ne d a supe rc e din g ind ic tme nt ch arg ingJar vis wi thNo. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

All dates ar e for

2007 unless otherwise spe cified. 1 - 2 - five c ounts: Count s One, Two, a nd Four char g ed Jarvis with dist ributing c rac k coca ine, and Count Three char g ed him with possession of cra ck coc aine with int ent t o distribute, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Count Five, a forf eiture c ount, char g ed that Jarvis had in his possession $9,455 in c ur re nc y and a n a

uto mob ile that w e re bo th at le a st p art ia lly pr oc e e ds fr om d

ru g tr a ff ic kin g in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. On Dece mber 20, 2006, one wee k afte r the super cedingindictment

was re turned, Jarvis entere d a plea of not g uilty . The c o u rt ac ce p ted his plea, set a pretria l confe renc e for

J anuar y 26, 2007, and set the jury trial to beg in Febr

uary 20. 1 On January 25 , o ne da

y be fo re the pr e tr ia l c on fe re nc e wa s sc he du le d, Jar vis mov e d to conti n u e, an d t he cour

t gr anted the c ontinuance. T he new pretria l confe renc e wa s scheduled f or Fe bruar y 23. Neither J arvis nor defe nse counsel Ken L awson appear ed on that date , and the matter

was re set for M ar ch 2, but ag ain J arvis and L awson fa iled to appea r. The district c ourt issued a summons and scheduled a show ca use hea ring for Ma

rch 7. J arvis and L awson both appe are d at the show cause hear ing, and L awson ex plained that he had missed the pr ior confe renc es bec ause he was completin g a nin

p a ti e n t s u b s ta n c e a b u s e tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m. T h e c o u rt f o u n d th a t d e f e n d an t h ad shown g ood cause , and set the tria l date for April 30. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re c ounte d th e e ve nts le a din g up to t he ne w tri a l date a s f

oll ow s: Som e tim e duri ngthe we e k o f A pr il 23, 2007 , th e Court wa s in fo rm a lly not i fi ed by

Def endant’ s pretria l service s office r that De fenda nt was havingsecond thoughts a

bout h i s re t enti on of Attorney L awson a s counsel and w as consider ing other c ounsel. I n view of the impending tr ial date of Apri l 3 0, 2007, the Court convene d an in-c h amber s ex-parte c onfer ence with Defe ndant, Def endant’ s friend Vi via n Co ok , a nd Attor ne y L aws on on F ri da y a ft e rn oo n, Ap ri l 27 , 2 00 7. Th e purp os eNo. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

Ap pa re ntl y L aws on ’s su

bs tanc e a bu se iss ue s h a d r e c e ntl y

be e n r e po rt e d in

the ne ws . 2 - 3 - of the c onfer ence was to discuss i ssues relating to Def endant’ s continued re tention of Attorney

L awson. The confe renc e wa s not recor ded. After listening to De fenda

nt’s conce rns, which include d Def endant’ s belief that Attorney

L awson was not g iving De fenda nt’s case the attention it deserve d due to his own su b stance abuse issues, the Court a sked De fenda nt what L awson ha d fa ile d to do to a de qu a te ly

pr e pa re fo r tr ia l and

re min de d D e fe nd ant t

hat th e tr ia l date had bee n continued to account for L awson’s absence

. Def endant mentioned a

list of motions L awson wa s supposed to fi l e on his behalf but wa s unable to produc e any list. W hen aske d if there wer e witnesses Attorney L awson wa s supposed to subpoena for tria l which he ha d been unab le to locate due to his absence duringhis drug reha bilitation, Defenda

nt indic ated he was una

war e of a ny such witnesses. When asked w hat Attorney

L awson ha d failed to do in pr epar ation for the trial, De fenda nt reiter ated that L awson’s ow n addiction issues made it diffic ult for h i m to have confide nce i n L awson. Af ter a ssuring Def

endant that Attorne y

L awson wa s more than compete nt to handle the case, which the C ourt cha rac terized as a f

airly ty pical dr ugc a se , De fe nd ant, Mis s Coo k, and Attor ne y L aws on re qu e ste d a

n o pp or tun ity to meet outside th e p re s ence of the unde rsig ned to discuss L awson’s c ontinued repr esentation. A short time later, the three i n dividuals emerg ed fr om their meeting and adv ise d th e un de rs ig ne d th a t w hil e De fe nd ant w a s st ill so me wh a t r e luc tant t o proc ee d with Attorney

L awson a s his counsel, they had re ache d a conse nsus that Def endant’ s continued re tent io n o f A tt o r n e y L a w s o n w o uld continue. This consensus was then pla ced on the rec ord during a brie f follow-up c onfer ence which included the prosec utor.

Dist. Ct. M em. Op. and O rder of June 22, 2007, at 4-5. On April 30, the di strict court held a final pre- trial confe renc e thirty minutes before trial was set to be g in. At this c onfer ence , J arvis ag ain broug ht up his discomfort with L awson, this time citing

a specific conce rn that jurors may have be come a

war e of L awson’s substanc e abuse problems, and 2 that they would “take out on [ J arvis] what they know about [L awson].” Dist. Ct. Mem. Op. andNo. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

- 4 - Or de r o f Jun e 22 , 2 00 7, a t 5. Th e c ourt inf or me d the pa

rt ie s that it c ou ld a dd

re ss t hat is su e in v oir dire, but that L awson’s substanc e abuse would likely not have a

ny eff ect on the jur

y . To fu rt he r d isc us s th a t issu e , the c ourt he ld an e x pa rt e c on fe re nc e a t th e be nc h, a t w hic h ti me L aws on vo ic e d his ow n c on c e rn : he ha d r e c e ive d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s Brady information on April 27 ( i.e. the Fr iday

proce eding trial), and“ [i ]t chang ed the whole theory of the c ase.” Dist. Ct. M em. Op. and Or der of

J une 22, 2007, at 7. This cha ng e in theory

revolve d around the fac t that L awson now believed that J arvis should take the stand in his own defe nse. L awson fe lt unprepar ed bec ause, althoug h he and J arvis had schedule d to me et on Saturday , April 28, to pr epar e their new t ri al strateg y , J arvis did not show up, nor di d J arvis re spond to L awson’s nume rous attempts to contac t him ov e r t he we e ke nd . A s a re su lt the y ha d not h a d a ny dis c us sio ns a t a ll r e g ard ingwh e the r Jarv is should testify

in his defense , or what his testim ony would be. Of course , the fac t that L awson now fe lt unp re pa

re d to be g in the tr ia l re inf or c e d Jar vis ’ c on c e rn a

bo ut L aws on ’s a

bil ity to d e fe nd

him , and L awson infor

med the cour

t that J arvis now wa

nted a ne w attor n ey . The c ourt informed de fe nd ant t

hat it wa s too la te to ch ang e a tto rn e y s bec a us e the y ha d d isc us se d th e se iss ue s at le ng th alre ady . Def

ense c ounsel moved both to withdraw an d fo r a c ontinuance, a nd the district court denied both motions. As tr ia l w a s a

bo ut t o b e g in, L aws on inf or me d the c ourt

in a sid e -b ar c on fe re nc e that Jar vis wished to cha

ng e his plea to g

uilty . This chang e of he art was appar ently prec ipitated by the cour t’s denial of L awson’s motions. Prior to a cce pting his guilty plea, the court conducte d a d etailed colloquy . J arvis and the court a g ain enter ed into a discussion rega rding the def

endant’ s dissatisfaction with his attorney . The only additio n a l a

r g u me nt advanc ed by

J arvis wa s his newfoundNo. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

- 5 - wo rr y a bo ut L aws on

be ing“ un

pr e pa re d” to b e g in t

he tr ia l. T he c ourt

qu ic kly po int e d out t

hat th is pr ob le m wa s du e t o Jar v i s ’ f a i l u r e t o a

p p e ar f o r a s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g w i t h L aw s o n . Jar vis acknow ledg ed that he ha d failed to a ppear at that m eeting

. The c ourt then conduc ted a standa rd plea coll o qu y w it h Ja r v is , d u r in g w h ic h Ja r

v is c o n f ir me d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d

h is o p ti o n s an d

the conseque nces of

eac h, was a

war e of the evidenc e ag ainst him, a nd was in fa ct g uilty

of the c rimes char g ed. Ha vin g de te rm ine d th a t Jar

vis wa s com

pe te nt to en te r his ple a , th e dis tr ic t c ourt a c c e pte d it

. Jar vis mov e d to wi thd

ra w that ple a on June 6, 20 07 , 37 da y s la te r. Th e dis tr ic t cou rt den ied his motion, and J arvis appe aled. II. A. We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on

de nyinga

mot ion to w ith dr aw a g uil ty

ple a fo r a bu se of discre tion. United States v. Dix on , 479 F.3d 431, 436 (6th Cir. 2007). I n our view, the district court’s a naly sis and decision on this issue was co rr ec t. Fede ral Rule of Criminal Proce dure 11 (d )( 2) (B ) p ro vid e s th a t a de fe nd ant m ay

wi thd ra w a g uil ty ple a if he “can showa

fa ir and jus t rea son for req

u e s ti n g th e w it

h dr aw a l. ” A s th e r

u le im p li e s , th e d e f

e n d an t b e ar s th e b u r d e nof providing such a r eason. Un ite d S tat es v . E lli

s , 4 70 F .3 d 2 75 , 2 80 (6t h Cir. 20 06 ). We e va luate wh e the r t his burd e n h a s b e e n s a tis fi e d b y re fe re nc e to s e ve n f

a c tor s: (1 ) t he a mou nt o f t ime tha

t e la ps e d b e tw e e n th e ple a

and the mot ion to wi thd

ra w i t; (2) the pr esenc e (or

absenc e) of

a valid re ason for

the fa ilure to move for

withdrawa l e arl ie r i n th e pr oc e e din g s; (3) whe ther the de fenda

nt has asser

ted or maintaine d his innocence ; (4) the c ircumstance s underlying the entry of the guilty

plea; (5) the de fenda

nt’s nature and bac kg round; (6 ) t h e d eg ree to which the def endant ha s had prior e x perie nce w ith the criminal justice sy stem; and (7) potential pr ejudice to the g overnme nt if the motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.No. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

At oral a rg ument, defe nse counse l claimed that Jarvis only beca me awa re of L awson’s 3 su bs tanc e a bu se a fe w d ay s b e fo re tr ia l. H ow e ve r, the re c or d be lie s thi s c la im. At the sh owc a

us e hear ing on Ma

rch 7, 2007, L aw s on informed the c ourt that he ha d missed the prior two pre trial confe renc es bec ause he was underg oing inpatient substance a buse treatment over the pr ior sever al we e ks . T he c ourt the n c on tin ue d the tr ia l fo r an a dd iti on a l tw o mon ths sp e c if ic a lly to a c c omm od a te L awson’s tre atment. The r ecor d clea rly indicates that J arvis was prese nt for this confe renc e whe n this iss ue wa s being discussed. Dist. Ct. Order of Marc h 8, 2007, at 1. - 6 - Un ite d S tat es v . B as ha ra , 2 7 F .3 d 1 17 4, 11 81 (6 th C ir . 1 99 4) ; Dixon , 479 F.3d at 436. Howeve r, this is a “g ener al, non-e x clusive list and no one fa ctor is controlling .” Un ite d Sta te s v . B az zi , 94 F.3d 1025, 1027 (6th Cir. 1996). As no te d a

bo ve , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y c on sid e re d and we ig he d the se fa c tor s. At bo tto m, for at least two months J arvis was skeptical of his counsel’s abilities, based on L awson’s substanc e 3 abuse issues. This, of course , is a perf ectly rea sonable c oncer

n for a litigant to have , and the district

c ourt wa s r ig ht t o d isc us s th is i ssu e wi th Jarv is at le ng th. I t pr ov ide d h im w ithmul tip le opportunities to choose to obta in ne w counsel. But neither J arvis nor the court co u l d l o ca t e any defic iency

that occur

red a fter the substance a

buse re velation, and, having ha d ample time to consider the pr ob le m, Jarv is u lti ma te ly cho se to p ro c e e d w ith L aws on . Jar

vis , th e re fo re , h a s b ro ug ht f or th no f a ir an d ju s t r e a s o n f

o r w it h dr aw in g h is p le a , mu c h le s s s a ti s f ie d th e h e ig h te n e d

abuse of discretion standa

rd. Ba zzi , 94 F.3d at 1027. B. For simil ar r easons, the district c ourt proper ly denied Ja rvi s’ motion to continue, made on the morning his trial was set to begi n . As wi t h a mot ion to withdraw a ple a, we revie w a district court’s de nial of a motion to continue for a buse of discr etion. Un ite d S tat es v . H all , 200 F.3d 962,No. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

J arvis conc edes that the g overnme nt’s transmission of the Brady m a t e r i a l s w a s t i m e l y. 4 Additionally , L awson testified that he would have had suff icient time to pr epar e had J arvis attende d the wee kend mee ting they had sche duled, and Jarvis does not dispute this claim.

- 7 - 964 (6th Cir. 20 0 0). To succ eed, “ [t ]he defenda nt must show that the denial resulted in ac tual prejudice in his defe nse. Actual prejudice require s proof that the c ontinuance w ould have pr ovided rele vant witnesses or contributed to the de fense .” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). Our f urther elabor ations on this determination make c lear that we take a holistic approa ch: Whe the r a c on tin

ua nc e is ap pr op ri a te in a p art ic ula r c a se de pe nd s o n th e fa c ts and c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

hat c a se wi th the tr ia l jud g e c on sid e ri ng , a mon g oth e r t hin g s, the le ng th o f d e lay , p re vio us c on tin ua nc e s, inc on ve nie nc e to l iti g ants , w itn ess e s, counsel and the court, whether the delay is pur poseful or is c aused by the ac cu sed, the co mpl e xity

of the c a se , a

nd wh e the r d e nyingthe c on tin ua nc e wi ll l e a d to identifiable pre

judice.

W ilson v. Mintzes , 761 F.2d 275, 281 ( 6th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). We need not dwe ll long on this issue. I t tur n s o n s o m e o f t he same fac ts as the denial of J arvis’ motion to withdraw his plea

. Whil e a continuance may have “ contributed to the de fense ,” as discussed a

bove the only

identifiable de ficienc y from which J arvis would have suffe red if the trial had commenc ed as sc heduled wa s due entire ly to his own failure to attend the meeting with L awson. 4 Fur thermore , the cour

t had alre ady

g rante d two continuance s to acc ommodate L awson’s substanc e

a bu se pr ob le ms, and

e ve n a g re e d to de lay

op e nin g state me nts un til aft er th e lunc h b re a k. Th is i s str on g e vid e nc e that th e c ourt wa s n ot u nr e a so na bly c on c e rn e d w iththe e xpe dit iou s r e so lut ion of thi s

c a se a t th e e xpe ns e of Jar vis ’ a bil ity to mou

nt an e ff e c tiv e de fe ns e . Gi ve n thi s c on sid e ratio n, it i s ha rd to s e e ho w the dis tr ic t c ourt c ou ld have a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

fa ili ngto b e tte r a c c omm od a teNo. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

- 8 - J arvis’ de cision to skip a meeting with his attorney two day s befor e trial. C. J arvis also ra ises a claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. He a cknowledg es that, in the

or din ary c a se , “ a de fe nd ant m ay

no t r a ise ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l cla ims fo r the fi rs t ti me on direc t appea l, since there has not b ee n an o p p o rt unity to develop and inc lude in the re cord evidenc e bear ing on the merits of the a lleg ations.” United States v. W under , 919 F .2 d 34, 37 (6 th Cir. 1990 ). He ar gu es t hat we should not apply this rule to his case f

or two re asons, but we f

ind neither c onvincing , and ther efor e we dismiss this claim as premature. Jar vis fi rs t po int s o ut t

hat w e have ma de e xce pti on s to our ru le wh e n the re c or d “ is a de qu a te to assess the mer its of the defe ndant’s alleg ations,” id., and the n p ro c e e ds to a

rgue that w e have jus t such a rec ord befor e us. We disa g ree . I n the context of a g uilty plea, a defe ndant cl aim ing ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel must show (1) o b j ec tively unrea sonable pe rfor

mance by counsel that (2) cause d the defe ndant to ple ad g uilty instead of g oing to tria l. Railey v . W ebb , 540 F.3d 393, 4 1 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and Hi ll v . Lo c k ha rt , 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985)). J arvis provide s only one conc rete occur

renc e of de ficient pe rfor

mance by L awson: that L aws o n wa s unprepa red f or trial. B ut, as repe atedly noted above , L awson wa s

u np re p ar edo n l y

t o t h e e x t en tt h at J ar v i s ca u s ed h i m t o b e b y fa i l i n g t o at t en d

t h ei r m ee t i n g. Othe rw ise Jar

vis dir e c ts u s to no e vid e nc e on thi s is su e a t a ll, so the re c or d in th is c a se is f a r l e ss develope d than it would need to be f or us to decide it now. Second, Jarvis makes the novel a rg ument that L aw s o n ’s assistance was pe r se inef fec tive, beca use “L awson ne ither obtained nor attempted to obta in lice nsure to pr actice law in Kentuc ky orNo. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

- 9 - the Easter n District of Ke ntucky .” Assuming that L awson indeed was not admitted to prac tice bef ore the trial cour

t, whether t h at re nders his assistance per se ineffe ctive is a pure question of law

nece ssitating no fur

ther development of the rec ord, and so we may take it up now. I t is an issue of first impression in this circuit whether counsel’s failure to g ain admis sion to prac tice before the trial court c an e v e r be the ba sis for a per se ineffe ctive assist ance claim. B ut it is one we need not de cide today , beca

use L awson’s be havior in this case clea rly does not amount to per se i n effective assistance . This circuit ana ly zes pe r se inef

fec tive assistance claims under the nominally differ ent but s u b s t an t i v el y

i d en t i ca l n o t i o no f a cc o rd i n g a d ef en d an ta p re s u mp t i o nt h at co u nsel’s per formanc e prejudice d him. See, e .g. , Short v. United States , 47 1 F .3 d 68 6, 69 2- 93 (6 th Cir

. 20 06 ). Th is c ir c uit pr e su me s a

de fe nd ant w a s p re

jud ic e d in

thr e e sit uatio ns : The fir st is the complete denial of counse l , i n wh i ch the accuse d is denied the pr e se nc e of

c ouns e l a t a

c ri tic a l st a g e . T he se c on d is wh e n c ouns e l e nti rely fails t o subject the prose cution’s ca se to meaning ful adversaria l testing. The third is when counsel is pla ced in c ircumstance s in w hich competent c ounsel very likely could not rende r assistance

. Mi t ch el l v. Mason , 3 2 5 F

. 3 d 7 3 2 , 7 4 2 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c it a ti o n s an d p u n c tu a ti o no mi tt e d )

. T he second sc enar io does not appea r to apply to a ca se that did not g o to trial, althoug h ev en i f i t did, L awson’s numerous pre- trial motions, objec tions, a nd discovery reque sts would cer tainly qualify as demonstrating an int ent t o “subjec t the prosecutor’s c ase to mea ningf ul adver sarial testing .” Id. The thi rd e xce pti on

is c le arl y ir re le va nt, a s it on ly a pp lie s to c ouns e l wi th a

n a c tua l c on fl ic t of

int e re st. There fore , J arvis is left with the argument that L awson’s failure to comply with admission proce dures in the trial court resulted in the “complete denial of counsel.” Id. T h e d en ial may be actua l or construc tive, Sh or t , 471 F.3d at 693, but in this case Jarvis suffer ed fr om neither. L awson,No. 07-6278

Un ite d S tat es v . J arv is

- 10 - even if n o t a d mi tt e d

to p r a c ti c e in

K e n tu c ky , w a s a d mi tt e d

to , an d a me mb e r in g o o d s ta n d in g o f, the Ohio bar , up to and throug h the time at which Jarvis entered h i s p l ea . Fur thermore , L awson made no identifiable mistakes in the course of his repr esentation. And finally , althoug h L awson wa s

no t a c tua lly

a dmi tte d to pr a c tic e law b e fo re the dis tr ic t court , tha t court a pp a re ntl y g ra nte d h im de fac to admission to represe nt J arvis. See Dist. Ct. Mem. Op. and Orde r of J une 22, 2007 (“L awson was pe rmitted to repre sent [J arvis] and all paper filings we re f

iled and adjudicated by

the Court.”). So in the end L awson’s failure to become a dmitted in Kentucky had litera lly

no eff ect at all on the proce eding s or on J arvis’ decision to enter his plea, and the confluence of t he factors noted a bove le a d u s to c on c lud e that J arv is’ pe r se ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e c la im must fa il. L aws on ’s fa ilure to g a in ad m i t t an ce t o p ra ct i ce b ef o re t h e di s t ri ct co u rt i s o f co u rs e pr o b l em at i c, an d we s t ro n gl y d i s co u ra ge it. However , there are numerous devic es alre ady in place to pr event just such behavior , and we see

no rea son to invalidate J arvis’ ple a on this basis. III . We theref ore a f f i rm the or de rs of the dis tr ic t cou rt de nying Jar

vis ’ m oti on

to w ith dr a w h is g uilty plea a nd his moti on t o continue, and w e dism iss as pre mature de fenda nt’s ineffe ctive assistance of counse l claim.