P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30785 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. R O N N IE M E R R ILL , al so kn ow n as M an n y, al so kn ow n as M an n i e , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V
- 7853 U S D C N o . 2 :02 -C R -2 7 7 -5 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R onni e M er r i l lappeal s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on ch a ll e n g i n g h i s 2003 gu i l t y- pl ea conv i ct i on f or di st ribu t i n g an d f or possessi n g w i t h t h e i n t en t t o di st ribu t e h eroi n an d crack coc ai n e, i n vi ol ati on of 21 U . S . C . § 841, an d h i s r e su lt i n g 280
- m on t h sentence. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ct c o ur tde ni e d r e l i e f, i tgr ant e d M e r r i l lac e r t i f i c at e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y ( CO A) o n t he

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30785

2 i s s u e “ wh e t h e r i n e f fe c t iv e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l a f fe c t e d t h e k n o w i ng and v o lu n ta r yn a tu r e o f th e p e tit io n e r ’ s g u iltyp le a .” I f hi s br i ef

i s l iber al l y co nst r ued, M er r i l lrenew s t he fol l ow i ng c l ai m s: 1) c o u n s e l w a s in e ffe c tiv e in i n d u c i n gh is g u iltyp le ab yp r o m is in gth a t h e w o u ld r e c e iv e a1 0 -y e a rs e n te n c e ; 2 ) c o u n s e l w a s in e ffe c tiv e in fa ilin gto q u e s t i o n h is m e n ta l co m p e te n c yp r io rto h is g u iltyp le a ; a n d3 ) c o u n s e l w a s in e ffe c tiv e in fa ilin gto o bje c t t o th e in d ic tm e n t. W e d o n o t a d d r e s s t h e th ir dcla im b e c a u s e it i s not en com pa ssed by the di st ri ctcourt ’ s C O Agran tan d becau se M erril ldi d n ot r e q u e s t a n e x p a n d e dC O Ain h is in itia l a p p e lla te b r ie f. S eeMiller -E l v. Co ck re ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 5 -3 6 (2 0 0 3 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ki m ler , 15 0 F . 3 d42 9 , 43 0 -31 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pri n ce , 8 6 8 F .2d 1 3 7 9 , 1 3 8 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). Thi s co ur tre vi e w s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs f

o rc l e are r r o ra nd le g a l co n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cav itt , 550 F . 3d430 , 435 ( 5th C i r. 2008) . To pr ove t hathi s c ounse lw as i nef fec t ive, M er r i l lm usts how t hat coun sel ’ s perf

orm an ce w as d ef

i ci en tan d that hi s def i ci en tperf

orm an ce p r eju d ic e dth e d e fe n s e . S t ri cklan dv. W ash i ngt on , 4 6 6 U . S . 66 8 , 68 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ). In c onnec t i on w i t h h i s c l ai m t hatc ounse ls houl d have ques t i oned hi s m ent al c om pet enc y t o pl ead g ui l t y, M er r i l lhas fai l ed t o m ake t he r equi r ed s how i ng. T h e r e cord sh ow s th a t M erril lw a s coh ere n t an dresp on sive a t rear ra i gn m en t, t est i f yi n g u n der oath t h at he un derst ood the cha rges agai n sthi m , t h e pl ea a g r e e m e n t, a n dth e n a tu r e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s , a s w e ll a s t h a t h e h a db e e n a b le t o c onferabo uts am e w i t h co unsel . M or eo ver , s ub seq u entex am i nat i on by a c our t - appoint ed ps yc hi at r i str evealedtha t M erril ldidn ot su ff er from an y m en t al defec trenderi n g h i m incom petent. M erril lcon cl u si on al l y assert s t h at c ou n sel sho ul d have r eali ze d t hathe s uf fer ed fro m unspec i f

i ed “ drug r el at ed m ent al i m pa i rm en t s. ” H ow ever, h e d oes n ota f f i rm ativel y assert , n or h as h e presented an y evi den ce t o show , th a the su f fered f rom an y m en t ali m pa i rm en tw h i ch rend ered him un able t o con sul tw i t h h i s l aw yer or t o un derst an d the n ature of t he pr o c e e di ngs a nd the r e f o r e do e s no tes t ab l i s h t hathe w as i n fac ti nc o m pe t e ntN o. 08- 30785

3 t o p l e a d g u i l ty . S ee D rope v. Mi ssouri , 420 U . S. 162, 172 ( 1975) . B y fail i n g to d em on strate tha t he w a s m en tally in com p eten t t o p l ea dgu i l ty, M erril lfa i l s to show t h at coun selw as d ef i ci en tforfai l i n g t o rais e the i ssue of hi s c om petency p r io rt o h is p le a , n o rca n h e s h o w a n yre s u ltin gp r eju d ic e . S ee S m ith v . P u ck ett , 907 F . 2d581 , 585 n. 6 ( 5th C i r. 199 0) . C o n tra ry to hi s asser t i on , t h e di st ri ct c o ur tdi d no t ab us e i t s di s c r e t i o n i n fail i ng t o ho l d a n e vi de nt i ar y he ar i ng o n t he c la im . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Fi e l ds , 565 F . 3d 290 , 200 9 W L 975 806 , at *7 ( 5th C i r. A pr. 13, 2009) . M er r i l l ’ s c l ai m t hath i s pl ea w as i ndu c ed byt he pr om i seof a 10
- year s e nt e nc e i s l i ke w i s e unava i l i ng. I n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , M e r r i l ldi d no tpr e s e nta ny i n dep en den ti n di ci a o f t h e l i kely m eri tof

hi s al l egati on s because h e di d n ot pr e s e nta f

f i da vit s f

r o m r el i able t hi r d p ar t i e s e s t ab l i s hi ng t he t e r m s o f t he all e ge d prom i se, t he t i m e a nd p l ac e o f t he pr o m i s e , o rt he i de nt i t y o f a ny e y e w itn e s s e s to th e p r o m is e . S ee Un itedS tate s v. Cervantes , 132 F. 3d 1106, 1110 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) . H i s ow n af f i davi t , c ont ai ni ng s elf

- se rvi ng c onc l usi onal a lle g a tio n s , is in s u ffic ie n t. Se ei d. ; seealso Un itedS ta tes v. D em ik , 489 F. 3d 644, 6 4 6 -4 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 128 S. C t . 456 ( 2007) . The af f i davi tex ec ut ed by h i s gi rl f ri en d’ s grand m ot h er provi ded no su pp ortas itcontai n ed n o i n f orm ati on r e g a r d in gco u n s e l’ s a lle g e dp r o m is e . S ee Cervantes , 132 F. 3d at1110. M e r r ill n o w m o v e s to e x p a n dth e re c o r do n a p p e a l to in c lu d e a n a ffid a v it e x e cu ted byhi s gi rl f ri en d, T am m y B row n , pu rport edl y executed i n Jan u ary 200 6. Th e G overnm en t opp oses t h e m ot i on . M erril l provi des n o expl an ati on f or n oth aving f

i rstp rovi ded the af

f i da vi tto t h e di st ri ctcourt , an d w e den y t h eref ore d en y th e m oti on to su p p l em en t. H ow ev er, ev en if th e rec ord w ere ex p a n d ed to in c lu d e th e a ffid a v it, it w o u ldn o t p r o v id e in d e p e n d e n t in d ic ia o f th e lik e lym e r it of M erril l ’ s c l ai m s as i t i s does n ot describe w i t h an y speci f i ci t y w h ere orw h en th e al l eg ed p rom i se by cou n sel w a s m a d e, a n d , m ore fatally, it do es n ot i n d i ca te th a t B r o w n w a s in fa c t a n e y e w itn e s s t o a n yp r o m is e m a d e b yc o u n s e l d ir e c tly to M e r r ill. S ee Cervantes , 132 F. 3d at1110.N o. 08- 30785

4 T h e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te db yM e r r ill is in c o n s i s t e n tw ith th e b u lko f h is c o nduc t , i nc l udi ng hi s pr e s um pt ive l y t r ut hf ul t e s t i m o ny atr e ar r ai gnm e nta nd t h e pl ai n t erm s of t h e pl ea agreem en t , both of w h i ch cl earl y ref u t e t h e al l egati on t h at coun sel prom i sed h i m a 10-year sentence. S u ch i n consi st en cy i s f u rther und er sc or ed byt he fac tt hatM er r i l ldi d notr ai set he c l ai m t h a t hi s pl ea w as i n duce d by t he pro m i se of a 10- year se nt enc e w hen he i ni t i al l y m ove d to wi t h d r a w h i s pl e a i n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , Me r r i l lh a s n o ts h o wn t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter ri n r ej ec t i ng hi s c l ai m w i t houtan ev i dent i ar y hear i ng. S ee Cervantes , 1 3 2 F .3 da t 1 1 1 0 . A ccord i n gly, th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t i s A F F IR M E D . T h e m oti on to s u p p le m e n t t h e re c o r dis D E N IE D .