T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. OLI VER KEI TH BROWN ER,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 6005 ( W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma) ( D. C. No. CR- 0 3 - 2 4 2 - 0 1 - T)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re LU CE RO , M c KAY , and M UR P HY , C ir c u it J u d g e s . I . I NT RO DU CT I ON D efe ndant - A ppel l ant , O l i verB r ow ner , w as char ged i n a mul t i count i ndi ctm entw i th drug and fi r earm s offe ns es . B r ow nerpl eade d gui l tyand w ai ved h is rig h t to a p p e a l, bu t su b se q u e n tlym o v e d to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea b a se d , in p a r t , o n a c l a i m o f

i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l . On a p p e a l , Br o wn e rc l a i ms the i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of hi s couns el i n r efus i ng t o s ubpoena t el ephone r ecor ds-2-

an d w itn esse s left him n o ch o ice b u t t o p lead g u il ty . H e a ll eg es th e d istri ct co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea a nd con t end s hi s pl ea shou l d b e setasi de as un enfo rceabl e. B row ner al so seeks a r emand forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). F o r th e re a so n s s e t fo rth b e lo w , this c o u rt di s m i s s es B r ow ner ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m . A s t o B r ow ner ’ s s ent enci ng cl ai m , how ever , w e r e m and th is cas e forr es ent enci ng. I I . FACTS A ft erthe comm ence m entof tr i al , B r ow ner , as s i s t ed bycouns el , ent er ed in to p lea n e g o tiatio n s w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. B ro w n e r a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e and t o di s tr i but e fi ftygr ams or m or e of c ocai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. I n excha nge, t he G overnm entagr eed t o di s m i s s the r emai ni ng count s i n the i ndi ctm entand an In fo rm a tio n se e k in g e n h a n c e d p u n ish m e n t. P u rsu a n t to th e p lea a g re e m e n t, B ro w n e r a g re e d to w a iv e h is rig h t to a p p e a l o r c o llate ra llyc h a llen g e h is g u ilty p lea a n d a n yo th e r a sp e c t o f h is c o n v ictio n , ex c e p t as to su b se q u e n t ch a n g e s in the l aw det erm i ned bythi s courtort he Supr eme C our tt o be appl i cabl e on di r ect appea l . A ft era col l oquyr egar di ng B r ow ner ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ght s , m andat ed by R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, t he di s tr i ctcourtacc ept ed B r ow ner ’ s gui l typl ea.-3-

A tt he begi nni ng of hi s s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, how ever , B r ow nerdeni ed hi s gui l t . T he di s tr i ctcourti nt erpr et ed B r ow ner ’ s deni al as a mot i on t o w i thdr aw the gui l typl ea a nd hel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. B r ow nercl ai m ed he onl ypl eade d gui l tyt o avoi d a mandat oryl i fe s ent ence . H e ar gued hi s couns el had i neffect i vel yr epr es ent ed hi m byfai l i ng t o s ubpoena w i tnes s es and t el ephone re c o rd s, th e re b yv io latin g h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o u n se l. B ro w n e r to ld the courthe w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l tyi f hi s couns el had i s s ued the s u b p o e n a s . T h e c o u rt d e n ie d B ro w n e r’ s m o tio n . B r ow neral s o obj ect ed t o the mandat or yappl i cat i on of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . O verrul i ng B r ow ner ’ s obj ect i on, the di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed the G ui del i nes i n a mandat oryfas hi on and s ent ence d B r ow nert o l i fe i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he courtal s o i m pos ed an alt ern ati v e se n tenc e o f th irty -five y ea rs i n the e v en t th e G u idelines w ere s u b s e q u e n tly d e c la re d u n c o n s titu tio n a l. B ro w n e r filed a n o tice o f a p p e a l an d th e G o v e rn m e n t filed a m o tio n to en fo rce the a p p ea l w aive r pro v isi o n o f th e p lea a g ree m en t. In li g h t of this co u rt ’s p o st- B ookerdeci s i ons addr es s i ng a defendant ’ s r i ghtt o appea l non- cons t i tut i onal B ookererr or , the G overnm entw i thdr ew i t s m ot i on t o enfor ce the pl ea a gr eement w ith re s p e c t to th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d .-4-

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . B row ner’ s I neffect i ve A s s i s t ance C l ai m M ust B e B rought i n C ol l at eral P roce edi ngs T h is co u rth as ju ri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 to co n side r B row n er’s a p p e a l f ro m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) . As B ro w n e r c o n c e d e s, h o w e v e r, th e p lea a g re e m e n t co n tain s a w a iv e r o f h is a p p e llate rig h ts. T h is c o u rt h a s h e ld “ a n a p p e a l o f a d e n ial o f

a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a g u ilty p lea is a n a ttem p t to c o n tes t a c o n v ictio n o n a p p e a l, an d th u s fa lls w ith in th e p lain l anguage of the w ai verpr ovi s i on. ” Un itedS ta tes v . E lli o tt , 264 F. 3d 1171, 1174 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W e must , t her efor e, fi r s tdet erm i ne w hether B row ner’ s w ai ver of h i s appell at e ri gh t s i s enfo rceabl e. If i ti s, t his cou rtm ust d ism iss B ro w n e r’s a p p e a l f ro m th e d e n ial o f

h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . Hahn , 359 F. 3d. at1328. T he enfor cea bi l i tyof an a ppeal w ai veri s as s es s ed ac cor di ng t o a thr eepr onged i nqui r y : ( 1) w hetherthe appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of t he w ai ver , ( 2) w hetherthe defendant ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ght s w as know i ng and vol unt ary , and ( 3) w h e th e r a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e w o u ld re s u lt f ro m e n fo rc e m e n t o f

th e w a iv e r. Id. at1325. A m i s carr i age of j us t i ce c an onl yr es ul tw her e one of fours i tuat i ons has occurr ed, i ncl udi ng w hen “i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i t h t he-5-

negot i at i on of the w ai verr ender s the w ai veri nval i d. ” Id. at1327 ( ci t i ng E lli o tt , 2 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 3 ). B r ow ner ’ s cl ai m i m pl i cat es onl ythe thi r d pr ong of Hahn and, ther efor e, w e n e e d o n ly ad d re s s th e th ir d p ro n g . See Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t er , 405 F. 3d 1136, 1143 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . B r ow nerar gues hi s couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o s ubpoena w i tnes s es and t el ephone r ecor ds l efthi m no choi ce butt o pl ead gui l ty , and amount ed t o i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n connec t i on w i th the negot i at i on of the pl ea a nd t he w ai ver . H i s couns el ’ s i nact i on, he ar gues , amount s t o a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce u n d er Hahn a n d s h o u ld e n title h im to w ith d ra w h is p le a . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d and B r ow ner ’ s al l egat i ons , thi s cour tdet erm i nes B r ow ner ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m i s notbarr ed bythe appe al w ai ver . H i s cl ai m i m pl i cat es t he narr ow exce pt i on r ecogni zed i n Hahn and E lli o tt and expl ai ned i n Uni t ed Stat es v. C ocke r ham , 2 3 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2001) , thatcl ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n negot i at i on of a pl ea a g re e m e n t c a n n o t b e b a rr e d b yth e a g re e m e n t’ s a p p e a l w a iv e r p ro v is io n . B ro w n e r’s n a rro w lyd ra w n a rg u m e n t is th a t h is c o u n se l w a s u n w ill in g to su b p o e n a tele p h o n e re c o rd s a n d a w itn e ss th a t w o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d d e fe n se s to the cha r ges agai ns thi m and pr oven hi s i nnocenc e. H e cont ends he w oul d not have pl eade d gui l tyhad hi s l aw y erobt ai ned the exc ul pat or yevi dence B r ow ner as s ert s w as avai l abl e. B r ow ner , i n es s ence , ar gues he had no c hoi ce butt o acc ept the pl ea, s i nce “ thr ee- four ths of hi s cas e w as bas ed on the [di s put ed] t el ephone-6-

cal l s . ” I n C ocke r ham thi s courtadopt ed the vi ew that“[i ] ti s al t ogether i nconce i vabl e t o hol d s uch a w ai verenfor cea bl e w hen i tw oul d depr i ve a defe ndantof the opportuni tyt o as s er thi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o couns el w her e he ha d acc ept ed the w ai veri n r el i ance on del i nquentr epr es ent at i on. ” C ocke r ham , 237 F. 3d at1184 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . B r ow ner ’ s cl ai m m akes the r equi r ed conne ct i on betw een i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and hi s acc ept ance of the pl ea a gr eementand appe al w ai ver . H i s cl ai m , ther efor e, fal l s w i thi n the E l l i ot t/ Hahn m i s carr i age- of-j us t i ce e xcept i on t o the enfor ceabi l i tyof hi s appea l w aive r. C l ai m s of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , how ever , s houl d gener al l ybe b ro u g h t in a c o lla te ra l p ro c e e d in g ra th e r t h a n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Hahn , 359 F. 3d at 1 3 2 7 n .1 3 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. G al l ow ay , 56 F. 3d 1239, 1240 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( en b an c) (“In effe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel claim s . . . b rou g h t on d ir ec t app ea l are pr es um pt i vel ydi s m i s s i bl e, and vi r tual l yal l w i l l be di s m i s s ed. ”) . A bs entl i m i t ed exce pt i ons notappl i cabl e her e, t hi s courtw i l l di s m i s s s uch cl ai m s , det erm i ni ng them t o be more appr opr i at e forfac tual devel opm entdur i ng col l at er al p ro c e e d in g s in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . G al l ow ay , 56 F. 3d at1240; Uni t ed Stat es v. E dgar , 348 F. 3d 867, 869 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thi s court ’ s pr efe r ence t o defe r cons i der at i on even w hen i s s ues ar e s uffi ci ent l ydevel oped) . A l though the di s tr i ct co u rtin this ca se d id co n side r som e o f B row n er’s co m p lai n ts w ith h is co u n sel’s p e rfo rm a n c e , the fa c tu a l re c o rd is n o t su fficie n tlyd e v e lo p e d fo r th is c o u rt to-7-

cons i derthe mer i t s of B r ow ner ’ s cl ai m and w e s ee no otherr eas on t o departfr om ourgener al pr act i ce. T hi s court , t her efor e, decl i nes t o r eac h the mer i t s of B r ow ner ’ s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m . I f B r ow nerpur s ues thi s cl ai m , he mustdo s o under 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . C ocke r ham , 237 F. 3d at1187 ( “[A ] pl ea a gr eementw ai verof pos t - convi ct i on r i ght s does notw ai ve the r i ghtt o br i ng a § 2255 pet i t i on bas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s chal l engi ng the val i di tyof the pl ea ort he w aive r. ”). B . N o n -C o n stitu tio n a l B oo ker Err or R e qui r e s R e m and T hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew B r ow ner ’ s s ent ence pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A ts ent enci ng, B r ow nerobj ect ed t o the im p o sitio n o f

a m a n d a to ryG u id e lin e s s e n ten c e a s p o ten tiallyin c o n sis ten t w ith the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtoverrul ed the obj ect i on and i m pos ed a l i fe s ent ence fol l ow ed by fi ve y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e; the courtal s o i m pos ed an a l t ernat i ve s ent ence of thi r ty - fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm enti n the eve ntt he Supr eme C our tdecl ar ed the G u id e lin e s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. B ro w n e r’s a p p e a l w a iv e r sp e c ifica llyp re se rv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l b a s e d o n c h a n g e s in th e la w a p p lic a b le o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. T h e d istric t co u rt’s m a n d a to rya p p lica tio n o f th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s in se n ten c in g B ro w n e r to life im p riso n m e n t co n stitu ted n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ooker e rr o r. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za les -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 1

– 3 2 (10 th C ir .-8-

2 0 0 5 ) (e n b a n c ). W h e n a d e fe n d a n t p re se rv e s a n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ookerc l a i m, a s B ro w n e r d id h e re , th is c o u rt re v ie w s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s e rr o r fo r h a rm le s s n e s s . Un itedS ta tes v . D o w e ll , 430 F. 3d 1100, 1112 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he G overnm ent b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g , b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , tha t th e e rro r in s e n te n c in g d id n o t a ffe c t th e d e fe n d a n t’ s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . Id. A s ent enci ng err ordoes notaffecta defendant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s i f i t“di d notaffectthe s ent ence i m pos ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt . ” Id. I n thi s cas e, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s al t ernat i ve s ent ence of thi r ty - fi ve y ear s w as farbel ow the G ui del i nes ’ m andat oryl i fe s ent ence . T he G overnm entconce des that , undert hes e ci r cumst ance s , i tcannots how the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s err orw as h a rm les s. T h e re fo re , this c o u rt r e m ands B r ow ner ’ s cas e t o the di s tr i ctcourtfor r es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i th B ooker . I V. CO NC L US I ON F o r th e re a so n s g iv e n a b o v e , this c o u rt di s m i s s es B r ow ner ’ s appea l fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. B r ow ner m us tpur s ue hi s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , i f atal l , i n a col l at er al p r o c e e d i n g . Be c a u s e o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c i n g e rr o r , h o we v e r , we r e m and thi s cas e forthe s ol e purpos e of r es ent enci ng. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge