2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-6-2008 

# J ohnson v . U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3930

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " J o hn s on v . U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 411. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/411NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### No. 06- 3930 E RI K J OHNS ON, A ppel l ant

v. U N IT 

### ED STATES OF AMERI CA APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 02507) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e W i l l i am G . B as s l er

A r gued: Sept ember25, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober6, 2008)

L aw r ence C . H er s h, E s q. ( A r gued) Sui t e 105 17 Sy l van St r eet R ut her for d, N J 07070- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l antSpeci fi cal l y , J ohns on w as convi ct ed of one countof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and 1 pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more than one ki l ogr am of her oi n and more than fi ve ki l ogr ams of cr ack c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and one c ountof di s t r i but i ng a n d p o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te h e ro in , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 . 2 J ohn F. R om ano, E s q. ( A r gued) G eor ge S. L eone, E s q. O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet , R oom 700 N ew ark, N J 07102- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge Fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al atw hi ch he di d nott es t i fy , E r i k J ohns on w as convi ct ed of tw o c o u n ts o f

d ru g tra f

f ick in g a n d se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. W e a f f irm e d h is 1 c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 8 9 F e d . A p p x . 7 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). H e subseq uen t l yfi l ed a p et i t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5 clai m i ng , am on g o t her things, t hathe w as deni ed ef

fec t i ve as s i s t ance of couns el beca us e hi s tr i al couns el “di d not advi s e [hi m ] t hathe had the ul t i m at e author i t yt o deci de w hethert o t ake the s t and and tes tify .” (A 3 3 .) A c c o rd in g to Jo h n so n , b u t f o r th is e rro r “ [ t]h e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat[he] w oul d have t aken the w i t nes s s t and and di r ect l yr ebut t ed ea ch and everym at er i al fac tpr es ent ed thr ough the per j ur ed t es t i m onyof M s . L at i fa Shahe ed and t he o t her w i t nesses, w ho se ‘ credi bil i t y ’ w as m at eri al t o the j uryverdi ctand [his ]3

s ent ence . ” ( A 50. ) I n oppos i ng hi s pet i t i on, the governm ents ubm i t t ed the A ffi r m at i on of Jo h n so n ’s tria l co u n se l, w h ich sta ted : I r evi ew ed w i t h J ohns on hi s r i ghtt o t es t i fyon hi s ow n behal f. I i nform ed J ohns on t hat. . . he coul d notbe for ced t o t es t i fyattr i al , butthat , i n t he eventhe chos e t o do s o, he had e veryr i ghtt o t ake the s t and and t es t i fyon h is o w n b e h a lf. I d isc u ss e d se v e ra l ad v a n tag e s a n d d isa d v a n tag e s o f th is p o ten tial stra teg y , an d , af ter c o n sid e rin g th e m a tter, Jo h n so n k n o w in g ly e le c te d to re f

ra in f ro m te s tif

y in g a t tr ia l. ( A 162. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound J ohns on’ s cl ai m t o be fr i vol ous and deni ed the pet i t i on w i t houta hea r i ng, expl ai ni ng, as r el evanther e, that , gi ven the “l ack of s peci fi ci t y ” i n t he pet i t i on, “i n combi nat i on w i t h t he A ffi r m at i on bycouns el , ” the pet i t i on and r ecor ds i n t he ca se sh o w ed co n clus ivelythat Jo h n so n w as n o t entit led to reli ef. (A 1 0 . ) Jo h n so n fil ed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l w h ich w e c o n stru ed as a req u est fo r a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yunder28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) . W e gr ant ed the r eques t , but onl yas t o ( 1) w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n s um m ar i l ydeny i ng w i t houta hea r i ng Jo h n so n ’s c laim th a t trial c o u n se l re n d e re d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b yf

a ili n g to a d v ise h im th a t h e h a d th e u lti m a te a u th o rityto d e c id e w h e th e r to tes tify , an d (2 ) w h e th e r h e is ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on the mer i t s of thatcl ai m . W e r evi ew the deni al of a § 2255 pe t i t i on w ith o u t a h e a ri n g f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 221 F. 3d 430, 437 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A di s t r i ctcour tm us t“ac ceptthe truth of the movant ’ s fac tual al l egat i ons u n les s th e ya re c lea rlyf riv o lo u s o n th e b a sis o f th e e x istin g re c o rd ,” a n d it “is r e q u ire d to hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng ‘ unl es s the mot i on and fi l es and r ecor ds of the ca s e s how concl us i vel yt hatt he movanti s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ’ ” U n itedS ta tes v . B o o th , 432 F. 3d4

542, 545- 46 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “[V ] ague a nd concl us oryal l egat i ons cont ai ned i n a § 2255 pet i t i on m aybe di s pos ed of w i t houtfur t heri nves t i gat i on bythe D i s t r i ctC our t . ” Thom as , 2 2 1 F .3 d a t 4 3 7 . W e w ill a f f ir m . T o p re v a il o n h is in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im , Jo h n so n w a s re q u ire d to s h o w b o th th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s d e f ic ie n t, i . e. , unr eas onabl e underpr evai l i ng p ro f e s s io n a l s ta n d a rd s , a n d th a t h e w a s p re ju d ic e d b yh is c o u n s e l’ s d e f ic ie n c y . I

d. a t 5 4 6 . P re ju d ice is e sta b lish e d w h e n it h a s b e e n sh o w n th a t “th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty t hat , butforcouns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 9 4 (1 9 8 4 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe r ecor d concl us i vel ys how ed thatJ ohns on fai l ed to e sta b lish p re

ju d ice : “[ a ]lth o u g h P e tit io n e r sta tes th a t th e re su lt o f th e p ro c e e d in g c o u ld have be en di ffe r enthad he t es t i fi ed, he fa i l s t o expl ai n w hatfac t s he coul d have r ebutt ed and w hyt he al l eged pe r j ur ed t es t i m onyw as m at er i al t o hi s convi ct i on bythe j ury . ” (A 1 0 . ) T h e D istri ct C o u rtw as u n d o u b tedlyco rrect. Jo h n so n ’s va g u e a n d co n clus o ry cl ai m t hat hi s t est i m on yw ou l d h ave rebu t t ed “ev erym at eri al fact ” and everyadv ers e w i t nes s fal l s w el l s hor tof es t abl i s hi ng a “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y ” that , had he t es t i fi ed, “the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n s o concl udi ng and, gi ven thatN ei t herw as i tnece s s aryfort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o cons i derw hetherthe evi dence at 2 tr ia l w a s a s “ o v e rw h e lm in g ” a s th e g o v e rn m e n t b e lie v e s it to b e . See A ppel l ee’ s B r . at8, 2 2 . W e s t r es s t he i m por t ance of the conc es s i on that , des pi t e J ohns on’ s as s ert i on thatt r i al 3 c o u n se l d id n o t tell h im th a t h e h a d th e “ u lti m a te a u th o rity ” to d e c id e w h e th e r o r n o t to t es t i fy , couns el di d t el l hi m t hati tw as hi s — J ohns on’ s — deci s i on t o m ake. I n other w o rd s , th e A f

f ir m a tio n o f

c o u n s e l o n th is p o in t is e f f e c tiv e ly u n d is p u te d . 5 concl us i on, w as notr equi r ed t o cons i derthe def i ci encypr ong of the Str i ckland test . N o r, 2 w e a d d , a re w e . W e nonethel es s bel i eve i tw or t hyof m ent i on thatJ ohns on al s o fai l ed t o s how t hat tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s d e f

ic ie n t b e c a u s e c o u n s e l d id n o t te ll h im , in haec ver ba , thathe, J ohns on, had the “ul t i m at e author i t y ” t o deci de w hethert o t es t i fy . Sur el yi m pl i ci ti f not expl i ci tbot h befor e the D i s t r i ctC our tand i n J ohns on’ s br i ef on thi s appea l i s the fa ctt hat he has t aken no i s s ue w i t h anys t at ementi n couns el ’ s A ffi r m at i on, ther ebyconce di ng t hat couns el t ol d hi m of hi s r i ghtt o t es t i fyon hi s ow n behal f and of the adva nt ages and d is a d v a n ta g e s o f

e le c tin g to d o s o , a n d th a t h e k n o w in g ly el e c te d n o t to ta k e th e s ta n d . A nydo ub t s as t o thi s fel l aw aydu ri ng oral argum ent w hen , i n respon se t o o ur quest i on s, appel l at e couns el confi r m ed thatt he verynarr ow i s s ue bef or e us i s w hethertr i al couns el w as al s o r equi r ed t o t el l J ohns on, i n t he pr eci s e w or ds thatJ ohns on s ugges t s , thatJ ohns on h ad the “ u lt im ate a u tho ri ty ” to d ec ide w h ethe r t o test ifyan d b ec au se th o se w o rds w ere notus ed, couns el w as defi ci ent . W e know of no s uch l anguage r equi r ement , and s ee no r e a s o n t o i mp o s e o n e n o w. 3 W e w ill a f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt d e n y in g th e p e tit io n w ith o u t a h e a ri n g .