FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Januar y 18, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16961 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e t N o s . 05 -207 26 -C V -J IC 03 -204 41 C R -J IC F E L I X S U A R E Z , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 18, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

F e de r a l pr i s one rF e l i x S ua r e z appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s § 2255 m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de orc orr e c thi s s e nt e nc e . W e gr a nt e d ac e r t i f i c a t e of appeal abi l i ty on the fol l ow i ng i ss ue on l y: “ [w ] hether app el l antw as deni ed ef fe ct i ve as si st ance of coun se l w hen cou nsel fa i l ed t o fi l e at i m el y not i ce of appeal af t erappel l antal l egedl y r equest ed coun se l t o d o so and w hether the di stri ctcourt erre d i n fai l i ng t o h ol d an evi dent i ary heari ng on the i ss ue, ” pursuantt o G om ez D ia z v . U n ite d S ta te s , 4 3 3 F .3 d 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S u a r e z a r g u e s th a t h is c o u n s e l w a s p e rs e in e f f e c tiv e b e c au s e h e f

a ile d to f ile a di re ctappeal up on re qu es tand that , ata m i ni m um , S uare z i s e nt i t l ed t o an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on the i s s ue . T he gove rnm e ntc onc e de s tha t , pur s ua ntt o our deci si on i n G om ez -D i az , the di stri ctcourterre d b y f i nd i ng thatS uare z had w ai ved hi s c l ai m thathi s c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o fi l e adi re ctappeal . It ac kn ow l edges thatw e s ho ul d rem and for the di stri ctcourtt o con du ctan evi dent i ary heari ng t o est abl i sh w hether S uare z’ s tri al coun se l had a du ty t o fi l e a n o tic e o f ap p e a l f r o m th e f in a l ju d g m e n t in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A di stri ctcourt ’ s l egal concl usi on s i n a 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 p roce edi ng ar e r e vi e w e d de novo a nd i t s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or . L y nn v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 365 F . 3d 1225, 1232 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . W he the rade f e nda nt ul t i m at el y has re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l i s am i xed q uest i on of fa ct3

a n d la w r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . M in c e y v . H e a d , 2 0 6 F .3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T he l egal st andard go verni ng the di sposi t i on of i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofc ouns e l c l a i m s i s de r i ve d f r om the s e m i na l c a s e of S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S. 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . 2 0 5 2 , 8 0 L. Ed . 2 d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . I n Str i c k l a n d , th e Su p r e me C ou rtes t abl i shed a tw o-pron g t es tfor a dj ud i ca t i ng i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofcoun se l cl ai m s. F i rs t , a m ov antm ustshow thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as un re as on abl y def

i ci ent . S ec on d, the m ov antm ustshow thatthi s def i ci ency p r e ju d ic e d th e d e f

e n s e . I d . a t 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 0 6 4 . I n Ro e v . Fl o r e s - O rt e g a , 5 2 8 U . S. 4 7 0 , 1 2 0 S. Ct . 1 0 2 9 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , th e Su p r e me C ou rtappl i ed the t es tse tforth i n S tri ckl and i n add re ss i ng the qu es t i on of w hen c ouns e l i s i ne f

f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o f

i l e anot i c e of

appe a l . T he C our tr e i t e r a t e d the l ong- e s t abl i s he d rul e tha tal a w y e rw ho di s r e ga r ds s pe c i f i c i ns truc t i ons f

r om the d e f e n d a n t to f

ile an o tic e o f

ap p e a l a c ts in ap r o f

e s s io n a lly u n r e a s o n ab le m a n n e r . I d. a t476- 77, 120 S . C t . a t1034- 35. T he C our tf ur the rhe l d tha tc ouns e l m a y be in e f f e c tiv e e v e n w h e n ad e f

e n d a n t h a s n o t s p e c if

ic a lly in s tru c te d h is c o u n s e l to f ile a n ap p e a l, s o lo n g a s c o u n s e l h a d ad u ty to c o n s u lt th e d e f e n d a n t ab o u t h is d e s ir e to ap p e a l. T h is d u ty to c o n s u lt a r is e s w h e n e ith e r : ( 1 ) a n y r a tio n a l d e f e n d a n t w o u ld w a n t to ap p e a l; o r( 2 ) th e d e f e n d a n t r e a s o n ab ly d e m o n s tr a te d a n in te r e s t in appe a l i ng. I d. a t480, 120 S . C t . a t1036. F i na l l y , i n a ddi t i on t o s how i ng4

un re as on abl e def

i ci ency , the defendantm ustal so show thatthe fa i l ure t o fi l e a n o t i ce o f ap p eal cau sed p rej u d i ce. “ [T ] o sh o w p rej u d i ce u n d er th ese c ir c u m s ta n c e s , ad e f

e n d a n t m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s de f

i c i e ntf a i l ur e t o c ons ul tw i th hi m abouta n appe a l , he w o u ld h a v e tim e ly ap p e a le d .” F lo r e s - O r te g a , 5 2 8 U .S . a t 4 8 4 , 1 2 0 S .C t. a t 1 0 3 8 . I n G o m e z - D ia z , w e w e r e p r e s e n te d w ith ac a s e f a c tu a lly a n d p r o c e d u r a lly s i m i l a rt o the i ns t a ntappe a l . I n tha tc a s e , G om e z - D i a z pl e d gui l ty pur s ua ntt o a w r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e ntc ont a i ni ng as e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve r . G om e z - D i a z , 433 F . 3d a t790. G om e z - D i a z di d notf i l e adi r e c tappe a l . I d. H e f i l e d a§ 2255 m o tio n , w h e r e in h e a lle g e d , in te ra lia , th a t h is c o u r t- ap p o in te d c o u n s e l f a ile d to f ile anot i c e of

appe a l a s he ha d r e que s t e d. I d. T he di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d the § 2255 m o tio n w ith o u t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g , o n th e b a s is th a t G o m e z - D ia z f a ile d to i dent i fyany groun d for appeal fa l l i ng w i thi n the except i on s l i st ed i n the se nt ence ap p e a l w a iv e r . I d . a t 7 9 0 . A fterex am in in g th e a n alytical fr am ew o rk se t fo rth in th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s deci si on s i n S tri ckl and and F l ores -O rt ega, w e hel d thatG om ez -D i az di d i n fac t s ta te ac la im s u f

f ic ie n t to e n title h im to a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. I d . a t 7 9 1 - 9 3 . W e r e m a n d e d th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith in s tru c tio n s to cond uctan evi dent i ary heari ng t o d et erm i ne w hether G om ez -D i az ’ s i ni t i al5

st at em ent s w er e s uffi ci entt o tri gg era perse du ty t o app ea l , and i f not , w hether c o u n s e l f u lf ille d h is c o n s titu tio n a l d u ty to c o n s u lt w ith G o m e z - D ia z r e g a r d in g h is de s i r e t o appe a l . I d. a t793 W e a l s o he l d tha tthe r e a s oni ng of F l or e s - O r t e ga ap p lie d “w ith e q u a l f

o r c e ” w h e r e th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s w a iv e d m a n y , b u t n o t a ll o f h is appe l l a t e r i ght s . I d. a t793. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the p a rtie s , w e f

in dth a t G o m e z - D ia z c o n tr o ls th is c a s e , a n d v a c a te a n d r e m a n d . H er e, as i n G om ez -D i az , the di stri ctcourterre d b y c on cl ud i ng thatS uare z had w ai ved h i s i neff

ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l cl ai m . In thatca se , G om ez -D i az pl ed gu i l ty pursuantt o a w ri tt en pl eaagre em entcont ai ni ng a s ent ence appeal w a i ve rtha t , s ubs t a nt i ve l y , w a s e s s e nt i a l l ythe s a m e a s the w a i ve ri n the i ns t a nt ca se . G om ez -D i az , 43 3 F . 3d at79 0. In denyi ng S uare z’ s i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance of - c ouns e l c l a i m a s s e rt e d i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tthe c l a i m w a s ba rr e d by S ua r e z ’ s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry w a i ve r . A s c onc e de d by the gove rnm e nt , the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n m a ki ng thi s f i ndi ng i n l i ghtof

the r e a s oni ng s e t f o rth in G o m e z - D ia z . T he re cord show s thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otaddres s the i ss ue of w hether S u arez actuall y req u est ed h i s att o rn ey t o fi l e an ap p eal . T h i s i s an essen t i al fi rst s te p in th e a n a ly s is u n d e rF lo r e s - O r te g aa n dG o m e z - D ia z . T h e r e f o r e , w e v a c a te6

and rem and t o the di stri ctcourtt o con du ctan evi dent i ary heari ng i nt o: (1) w hether S uare z, i n fac t , re qu es t ed coun se l t o fi l e adi re ctappeal suff i ci entt o tri gg erthe per se du ty t o app ea l se tforth i n F l ores -O rt ega; and (2) i f not , w hether c ou nsel ful fi l l ed hi s c on st i tut i on al du ty t o con sul tw i th S uare z by a dv i si ng hi m of the advant ages a n d d is a d v a n ta g e s o f

f ilin g a n ap p e a l a n d m a k in g ar e a s o n ab le e f f o r t to c o m p ly w ith S u a r e z ’s w is h e s . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.