F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 2 0, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1637 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNos . 04 -2 23 95 -CV-J AL & 00 -0 03 76 CR-J AL YUBY RAMIR EZ,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ecem ber 20, 2007) Be fo re T JO FL A T , BL A CK and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Y uby Ram ir ez appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r 28 U . S. C. § 22 55 m oti on t o va cate in w hic h sh e ar gue d th at he r tr ia l c ouns el w as c onst itu tio na lly in effe ct iv e in ad vi si ng he r whe th er t o a ccep t a p le a o ffer . Ram irez w as indicted for witness tam pering, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 151 2(a)( 1)(c) . Specifica lly , c ount three a lleged in relevant part that Ram irez had

“ know ing ly , int en tio na lly and w ill fu lly ” kil le d B en ar do G onz al ez w iththe int en t to k ee p G onz al ez f

ro m c om m uni catin g to alawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r or j udge about the c om m iss ionof

f ed er al of fe nse s by c er ta in i ndi vid

ua ls. B ec au se the w itn es s tam pe ri ng i n qu es tio n w as the kil lin g of aw itn es s, the appl ic ab le statut es of lim itatio ns and s ta tut or

y pun ish m en ts d ep en de d onw he the r the kil lin g w as a ca pit al of fe nse or non -c ap ita l of

fe nse . I f ca

pit al , the re is no l im itatio ns p er iod . 18 U . S. C. § 32 81. I f non- ca pit al , af ive -y ear lim itatio ns p er iod appl ie d, w hic h w oul d re nde r the ind ic tm en t t ar dy be ca use it w as r et ur ne d m or e than f

ive y ears a ft er

the of fe nse ha d be enc om

m itt ed . 18 U . S. C. § 32 82( a) ( pr ovi din g th at “ no p er son sha ll be pr ose cu te d, tr ie d, or

pun ish ed f or any of fe nse , not c ap ita l, unl es s th e ind ic tm en t is f ound or the inf orm at ionis ins tit

ute d w ith in f

ive y ears ne xt a ft er

suc h of fe nse sh al l h av e b een co m

m it te d” ). Se ve ra l m onths b ef

or e tr ia l, Ram ir ez m ove d to dis m iss c ount thr ee , c la im ing that i t a lle ge d anon -c ap ita l of fe nse and w as gov er

ne d by af ive -y ear statut e ofRamirez had two attorney s, one of which submitt ed an aff idavit, a nd the other, who is now 1 a judg e, submitted an interview proffer i n g testimony

that would be pre sented at an evidentiar y hear ing. B oth attorney s state that they did not advise her of the possibili ty of a first degree murder 3 lim itations under 18 U. S. C. § 328 2. Ram irez argued that because Furm an v. G eo rgi a , 408 U . S. 238 , 92 S . Ct . 272 6, 33 L . E d. 2d 3 46 ( 1972 ) inv al idate d th e de ath pe na lty

pr ovi sio ns o f 18 U . S. C. § 11 11, and b ec au se § 15 12( a) (2 ) inc or por at es § 11 11, avio la tio n of 151 2( a) (1 )( c) is a non- ca pit al of fe nse . T he district court denied th e m otion , f indin g that count three c harged a ca pital offense. D es pit e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l, c ouns el sti ll be lie ve d, und er adif fe re nt the or y , that the ind ic tm en t on ly c harg ed Ram ir ez w ithm an sla

ught er be ca use : ( 1) the onlyoffense c hargeable under 18 U. S. C. § 151 2(a)( 1) that qualifies as a ca pital of fe nse is fi rs t de gr ee m

ur de r; and ( 2) c ount s 1- 3 di d no t a lle ge “pr em ed itatio n” or

“ m alice af

orethoug ht”—essential elem ents of first degree m urder. T rial counsel the re fo re a dvi se d R am ir ez that the ind ic tm en t on ly c harg ed m an sla ught er , not m urder, and therefore wa s barred by the statute of lim itations . Tr ial counsel furthe r advis ed

Ram ir ez of

the ir str at eg y to fi le am oti on atta ck ing the ind ic tm en t on this ba sis a ft er

j eo pardy ha d a tta ch ed

and, e ve n if

the m oti on f

ai le d, she w oul d at m ost f ac e a te n- y ear te rm

of im pr iso nm en t f

or m an sla ught er . B as ed

on this advic e, Ram ir ez r ej ec te d su cc es siv e gove rn m en t pl ea of fe rs of f ive -y ear an d te ny ear te rm s of

im pr iso nm en t i n e xc hange f or he r co ope ratio n. 1conviction and r esulting life sentenc e. B oth attorney s also state t h at t hey misrepre sented the statut or y maximumand

that Ramir e z re lie d o n th is m isr e pr e se ntatio n whe n r e je c tin gthe ple a

of fe rs . 4 A ft er the j ur y ha d be ensw or

n in , Ram ir ez f

ile d he r m oti on f

or j udgm en t of acquittal based on th e statute of lim itations , a sserting that th e indictm ent was insufficient because it failed to charge the nec essary elem ents of first degree m ur de r. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onstru ed the m oti on a s aF ed . R. Cr im . P . 12( b) (2 ) m ot io n a nd de ni editas u nt im el y . The jury fou nd Ram ire z g ui lt y . O n a ppe al , w e af

fi rm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt, hol din g th at the f ai lur e to r ai se the at ta ck on th e in di ct m en t p rio r to tri al res ul te d i n wai vi ng th e arg um en t. United States v. R amirez , 324 F. 3d 12 25, 1228-29 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Ram irez wa s convicted of witness tam pering invo lving m

urder and sentenced to life im pr iso nm en t, w hic h is the m ini m um se nte nc e fo r m

ur de r unde r 18 U . S. C. § 15 12 (a)( 3) (A). Wit h re s p ec tt o th e i n s t an tap p ea l , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed Ra m i re z’s § 225 5 m otion without an evidentiary hearing. Although Ram irez a sserted ine ff ec tiv en es s onse ve ra l gr ound s, w e gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

onl y on the iss ue of

: Whether trial counsel we re ineff ective because they

m isrepresented the m ax im

um se nte nc e Ram ir ez f

ac ed und er the se nte nc ing gu id el in es if c on vi ct edat t ria l. F inc h v . V augh n , 67 F . 3d 9 09, 9165

(1 1th Cir . 1995). Ram ir ez a sse rt s th at

he r attor ne y s in co rr ec tly

be lie ve d and a dvi se d he r that: (1 ) the ind ic tm en t di d no t c harge f ir st d eg re e m

ur de r; ( 2) the ind ic tm en t a t w or st ch arge d vo lun tary

m an sla ught er, w hic h w oul d su

bj ec t he r to a

te n y ear m ax im

um se nte nc e; and ( 3) the te n- y ear m ax im um w oul d a ppl y e ve n if the y los t the m oti on for a j udgm ent of acquittal/m otion to dism iss the ind ictm ent. R am irez a sserts that ev enif c ouns el he ld an e ar

ne st, goo d- fath b el ie f that the ind ic tm en t w as f law ed , they we re r equired to inform

her that she fa ced the possib ility of a life -term se nte nc e w he n sh e w as c onsi de ri ng the gov er nm en t’ s pl ea

of fe rs . A c la im of ine f fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el is a m ixe d qu es tio n of lawand fact th atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Br ownlee v . H aley , 306 F . 3d 1 043, 105 8 ( 1 1thCi r . 2002 ) 

### ; Finch , 67 F . 3d at 91 4.

“ T o pr ev ai l onac la im

of ine f fe ct ive a ssi stanc e, ade fe ndant m ust e sta bli sh two things: (1) ‘ counsel’s per form ance w as deficient, ’ m eaning it fell below an objec tive standard of reasonableness; and (2) ‘ the deficient perfor m ance prej udiced the defendant.’ ” Gor don v . U nited S tates , 496 F . 3d 1 270, 127 6- 77 (1 1thCi r . 200 7) ( quot ing S tri ck lan d v . W ashi ngt on , 466 U. S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)).6

“ Th e p u rp o s e o f i n effe ct i v en es s re v i ew i s n o tt o g ra d e c o u n s el ’s perform ance. ” Chandl er v . U nited S tates , 218 F . 3d 1 305, 131 3 ( 1 1thCi r . 200 0) (e n banc ). I n r ev ie w ing c ouns el ’ s pe rf orm an ce , w e ind

ulg e a str ong pr es um

pti on that counsel’s conduct fell w ithin the wide r ange of rea sonable, professional as si st an ce. Id. at13 14 . In ev al ua ti ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f co un se l’s ac ti on s, we m ust avoid second-guessin g counsel’s perf orm ance, as the fac t that counsel takes anappr oa choth er

than th e one the c ourt w oul d have c hose n is not ine f fe ct ive as si st an ce. Id . A n un suc ce ssf ul s tr at eg y

or de fe nse is al so n ot i ne f

fe ct ive as si st an ce. Id .

“ O ne of the m ost pr ec iou s a

ppl ic at ion s of

the S ixth A m en dm en t m ay w el l be in af fo rd ing c ouns el to advis e a de fe ndant c onc er nin g w he the r [s ] he sho uld enter a plea of guilty.” Re ed v . U nited S tates , 35 4 F .2d22 7, 2 29 (5t h C ir . 19 65 ).

“ Fo r a gui lty

ple a to r ep re se nt an in fo rm ed c hoi ce so tha t i t i s c onst itu tio na lly knowing andvolun tary

, the [ c] ouns el m

ust be fam iliar w ith the facts and the law in order to advise the defendant of the opti ons available.” Finch , 67 F . 3d at 91 6 (alteration in original; int ernal quotation m arks om itted). “ The f ailure of an attor ne y to inf orm his c lie nt o f the r el ev an t l awc le ar ly sa tis fi es the f

ir st p ro ng o f the S tri ck lan d ana ly sis . . . a s su chan om iss ionc an not be sa id t o f

al l w ith in the w ide r an ge of

pr of es sio na lly c om pe te nt a ssi stanc e de m an de d by the S ixth7

Am endm ent.” Id

. (alter ation in o riginal; internal quo tation m arks om itted). Ram irez is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her inef

fective a ssistance cl ai m if s he all eg es fact s wh ic h, i f pr ov en , wou lden ti tl e h er t o re li ef. Sm ith v . Sin gle tar y , 170 F . 3d 1 051, 105 3 ( 1 1thCi r . 199 9) ; se e als o 28 U . S. C. § 22 55 (p ro vid ing that a

m ovant i s e nti tle d to an e vid en tiary he ar ing w he re the r ec or ds an d fi le s o f th e cas e d o n ot co nc lu si ve ly sho w th atsh e is no t en ti tl edto rel ie f). A dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er, ne ed not c ondu ct an e vid en tiary

he ar ing if

it c anbe co nc lus ive ly

de te rm ine d f

ro m the r ec or d th at

the re w as no d en ia l of

e f fe ct ive as si st an ce o f co un se l. Sin gle tar y , 17 0 F .3dat 1 05 4. At the tim e counsel advised Ram irez that she f aced, at m ost, a ten-y ear m axim um for m anslaugh ter if the m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal wa s de nie d, the ir de fe nse str at eg y

ha d th re e poss ibl e out co m es : ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d ag re e w iththe ir

statut e of li m itatio ns argum en t and g rant the ir m oti on; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d a gr ee w iththe ir r ea din g of

the ind ic tm en t, but

r ej ec t tha t the ind ic tm en t w as unt im el y ; or ( 3) the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d r ej ec t the statut e of lim itatio ns argum en t and the ir r ea din g of

the ind ic tm en t. T he r es ult of the se outcom es would be, r espectively : (1) an ac quitt al; (2) a poss ible convictio n that ha d a t m ost

ate n- y ear statut or

y m ax im um ; or ( 3) apos sib le c onvi ct ionw itha m an da tor y se nte nc e of

li fe im pr iso nm en t.8

He re, wher e the district court had alrea dy ruled that the indictm ent charged a ca pit al of fe nse w ithno s ta tut e of

li m itatio ns, c ouns el sho uld have kno w n th at

the thi rd r es ult ( a lif e se nte nc e) w as apos sib ili ty , how ev er unl ike ly the y c onsi de re d it to be. Consequently

, if it is true that counsel advi sed, at the tim e Ram irez w as co nsi de ri ng p le a of

fe rs of f ive - an d te n- y ear te rm s, that R am ir ez onl y f ac ed a m axim um punis hm ent of ten y ears when in actuality she face d a possib le life se nt en ce, s uc h p erfo rm an ce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly defi ci en t. Se e U nit ed S tat es v . H err era , 412 F . 3d 5 77, 581 ( 5thCi r . 200 5) ( “ A n a tto rn ey w ho unde re sti m at es his client’ s sentencing exp osure by 27 m onth s perform s deficiently because he does not pr ovi de his c lie nt w iththe inf orm at ionne ed ed

to m ak e aninf

orm ed de ci sio n ab ou t ac cep ti ng a pl ea o f fer o r go in g t o t ria l.”) . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to f or eg o an e vid en tiary

he ar ing on the basis that it was conclusive from the rec ord that couns el did not perform deficiently

wa s in error . Beca

use the district court didnot address whether co unse ls’ pe rf

orm an ce pr ej udi ce d R am ir ez , w e do n ot r ea chit . O n r em an d, if the district court finds th at Ram irez a dequately alleged prej udice, Ram irez is entitled to an e vid en tiary

he ar ing . 28 U . S. C. § 22 55; Sin gle tar y , 17 0 F .3dat 1 05 3. W

e acco rd in gl y

va cat e an d re m an d. VACATED AND REMANDED.