The Honor able Ka rl S. Fore ster, Senior United States District Judge for the E astern * District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0691n.06 Filed: September

25, 2007 No. 06-4199 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT DO UG L AS A . T UR

NS, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,
V.

UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT

O F O H IO

Before: SUTTO N and MCKEAG UE, Circuit Judges; F OREST ER, Senior District

Judge. * KA RL S. FORESTER, S enior Distric t Judge. The Petitioner-Appellant, Doug las A. Turns, f iled a pr o s e pe tit ion

to v a c a te or

se t a sid e his sentenc e pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255 asser ting, int e r a lia , a claim of ineffe ctiv e a s s i s t an ce of
c ou ns e l. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u rti n i t i a l l y d i s m i s s e d

a l l o f T u r n s ’ c l a i m s w i t h t h e e xc e p t i o no f his ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel claim. Counsel was appointed to repr esent Turns on this issue, and an evide ntiary

hear ing w as held. The district court ul timately deter mined that Turns’ inef

fec tive assistance of counse l claim was without merit. This tim el y appea l followed. F or the re asons set2

forth below, the decision of the district c ourt will be AF FI RMED. I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND On Fe bruar

y 8, 2000, Turns wa s convicted by a jury of one c ount of conspira cy to defra ud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, four c ounts of bank robbe ry by forc e or violenc e, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and four counts of usi ng a gun duringa violent cr ime, in violation 18 U.S.C . § 924(c). He wa s ultim ately sentenc ed to a ter

m of imprisonment, to be followed by

a per iod of supervised r elea se. On direc t a ppeal, this Court upheld his conviction and sentenc e in May

2004. A petition for a writ of ce rtiorar i was subs eq uently denied by

the United State s Su pr e me Court
. Th e n, on Au g us t 18 , 2 00 4, Turn s f ile d th is pr o s e petition to vacate or corr ect his sentenc e pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Turns’ petition set forth ten g rounds for r elief. Pursua nt to local pr a c tic e , th is m a tte r w a s r e fe rr e d to a ma g ist rate jud g e fo r r e po rt

and re c omm e nd a tio n. On

Au g us t 26, 2005, the district court a dopted the mag istrate ju d ge’ s repor t and re commendation that all of Turns’ c laims be dismissed with the ex ceptio n o f h i s claim for ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel based on his attorne y ’s alleg ed fa ilure to call alibi witnesses and fa ilure to advise pe titioner that he
c ou ld p le a d guil ty

wi tho ut t e sti fy

inga g a ins t c o- de fe nd ants . A n e vid e nti ary he ari ng on

tho se c la ims
wa s se t and

c ouns e l w a s a

pp oin te d to re pr e se nt T ur ns . The mag istrate judge conducte d the evidentiar y hear ing on F ebrua

ry 21, 2006. I n his report and re commendation subseque ntly enter ed on May

15, 2006, the mag istrate judg e first noted that Turn s h a d w ith dr awn

his c la im that he wa s d e nied ef fe c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l du e to h is
a tto rn e y ’s fa ilure to c a ll c e rt a in a lib i w itn e sse s. Ne vert heles s, the ma g ist rate jud g e re vie we d th is claim and f

ound it lacke d any merit. The magistrate j udg e then turned to Turns’ c laim of ineff ective3

a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l ba se d o n h is atto rn e y ’s a lle g e d f a ilure to ad

vis e him that he co uld

ple a d guil ty without testify

ing ag ainst his c o-def

endants and failure to pr operly convey the terms of the plea of fer
. After revie wing the evidenc e and the testimony of Turns an d h i s t ri al attorney , Gar y Dee ds, the mag istrate judge conclude d that Dee ds’ testimony that Turns ref used to disc uss any

plea of fer , that Turns continued to a ssert his innoc ence and desire to g o to trial despite Dee ds’ re commendation that a g uilty plea wa s in his best int ere st, and that he never tol d Turns t hat he would be require d to testify ag ainst his co-def

endants wa s cre dible. On the othe r h an d, the mag istrate judg e conc luded that Turns’ testimony

that he would have a cce pted a plea offe r wa s “unworthy

of cr edit” in light of

the fac t that he consistently

maintained his innocen ce an d fl at out ref used to discuss any

plea of fer
. Moreove r, Turns c oncede d at the evide ntiary hear ing that he neve r told De ed s t h at he would be i n t e r e s t e d i na g u i l t y p l e a p r o v i d e d t h a th e w o u l d

n o th a v e t o t e s t i f

y a g a i n s th i s c o - d e f

e n d an t s . In lig ht o f T ur

ns ’ f lat r e fu sa l to dis c us s a

g uil ty ple a and Deeds’ te sti mony re la tin g to h is e ff

or ts t o discuss, an d

u lt im a te ly

r e c o mm e n d , a

g u il ty p le a w it h T u r n s , th e ma g is tr a te ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th at Dee ds met his obligations as Turns’ defe nse counsel with respe ct t o advice and counse l during the ple a ne g oti a tio n s ta g e of

thi s matte r. Ac c or din g ly , the ma g istra te jud g e re c omm e nd e d th a t T ur ns ’
rema ining c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel be dismissed. Turns filed objec tions to t he mag istrate judg e’s r eport a n d rec ommendation, which the district court re viewed de novo . Finding that the re cord f ailed to s u p p o rt Turns’ a lleg ations of ineff e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e o f c o u n s e l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o v e r r u le d T u r n s ’ o b je c ti o n s , a d o p te d

the mag istrate judg e’s r ep o r

t a n d r ecommendation, and dismiss ed Turns’ petition. The district court did, howeve r, g rant Tur

ns’ subsequent motion for a cer tificate of appea lability

on the following issue: Was petitioner denied the e ffe ctive assistanc e of counsel due to his attorney ’s fa ilure4

to a dv ise him that he co uld ple a d g uil ty wi tho ut te sti fy ing a g a ins t hi s c o- de fe nd ants or fa ilure to conve y

the plea of

fer
. This timely

appea l followed. II. AN AL YSI S Turn s a pp e a ls the de nia l of

his § 2 25 5 p e tit ion . To se e k re lie f und e r § 22 55 , a pr iso ne r “ mus t alleg e as a basis for r elief: (1) an er ror of constitutional magnitude; (2) a sente nce imposed outside the statutory limit s; or (3) an err or of fac t of law that was so fundame ntal as to r ender the entire proce eding i n v alid.” Mallett v. United States , 334 F.3d 491, 496- 97 (6 Cir. 2003) (citation th omitted). On appe al, Turns a rg ues that the district cour t erre d i n failing to find that his counsel pe rf or me d in e ff e c tiv e ly ba se d o n h is a lle g e d f

a ilure to a dv ise Turn s that he cou ld ple a d guil ty without testify

ing ag ainst his c o-def

endants and/or his c ounsel’s alleg ed failure to convey the plea offe r. This Court review s a district court’ s denial of a § 2255 motion de novo , while examining the fac ts unde r a “c lear ly

err oneous” standa

rd. Moss v. United States , 323 F.3d 445, 454 (6 Cir. 2003). th

“ I ne ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l c la ims are mixe d q ue sti on s o f l aw a

nd fa c t” and thu s w arr ant de

novo revie w. Ma lle tt , 334 F.3d at 497. I n order to raise a vi able ineffec tive assistance of counse l claim, Turns must satisfythe twoprong test articulate d in Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). The first prong of th e Strickland test require s a showing that “counse l’s repr esentation fell below an obje ctive sta nd ard of re a so na ble ne ss. ” I n o the r wo rd s, the pe tit ion e r m us t sh ow“ that c ouns e l ma de e rr or s so
se ri ou s th a t c ouns e l w a s n ot f un c tio nin g a s th e ‘c ouns e l’ guaran tee d th e de fe nd ant b y the Sixth Amendment,” a

nd the petitioner must identify acts t h at wer e “outside the wide ra ng e of profe ssionally

competent a ssistance.” Id
. at 687, 690. I n g ener al, “[a] cr iminal de fenda nt ha s a rig ht5

to e xpe c t a t le a st that hi s atto rn e y wi ll r e view t he c ha

rg e s w ithhim

by e xpla ini ngthe e le me nts
ne c e ssa ry fo r t he g ov e rnme nt to secu re a co nv ic tio n, dis c us s th e e vid e nc e a s it be ars on tho se elements, a

nd explain the sentencing exposure the def endant will fa c e as a c onsequenc e of e x erc ising
eac h of t he opti ons available .” Smith v. United States , 348 F.3d 545, 553 (6 Cir. 2003). Howe ver, th wh ile c ouns e l ma

y re c omm e nd

that hi s c lie nt a c c e pt t

he g ov e rnme nt’ s p le a

of fe r, “ the ult imate decision of whe ther to g o to trial must be ma de by the person who will be ar the ultimate conseque nce of a c onviction.” Id . at 552. The sec ond prong of the Strickland te st r e qu ir e s th a t th e pe tit ion er sh ow “that the re is a
rea sonable proba

bility that, but for counse l’s u n p ro fe s s ional err ors, the re sult of the proce eding would have be en diffe rent.” Id
. at 694. I n other words, the “pre judice” element “foc uses on whether counsel’s c onstitut ionally ineffe ctive performa nce affe cted the outcome of the plea pr ocess.” Hi ll

v . Lo c k ha rt , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). I n reje cting Turns’ c laims, the district court appropriate ly place d g reat weig ht on Turns’ flat ref usal to discuss a g uilty

plea. The evidenc e reve als that Dee ds communicated the g overnme nt’s plea of fer to Turns on more than one occasion, explained to him t he conse quence s of a guilty verdic t
- esse ntially

a life te rm - as opposed t o the plea of fer of ten y ear s imprisonment. Deeds eve n advised Turn s th a t a c c e pti ngthe ple a of fe r w ou ld b e in h is b e st i nte re st i n li g ht o f t he e vid e nc e a g a ins t hi m. De e ds did no t r e c a ll e ve r te lli ng Turn s tha t he wo uld be fo rc e d to te sti fy a g a ins t hi s c o- de fe nd ants in order to obtain the be nefit of a plea a g ree ment; in fa ct , T u rns told Deeds that he knew nothing
a bo ut h is c o- de fe nd ants , th us e lim inatin g any ne e d to te sti fy a g a ins t th e m. T he re c or d c le arl y re ve a ls that in ever

y conver sation Dee ds had with Turns about the plea offer , Turns professed his i nnocenc e and his desire t o g o to trial, and complete ly ref used to discuss a g uilty

plea. The fac t that Turns6

re f u s e d to a c kn o w le d g e th e s tr e n g th o f th e g o v e r

n me n t’ s c a s e c an n o t r e n d e r D e e d s ’ p e r formanc e constitutionally

defic ient. The dist rict cour t, thus, corre ctly

conclude d that Turns fa iled to show that De e ds ’ p e rf

or manc e wa s c on sti tut ion a lly de fi c ie nt. Mo re ov e r, re g ard le ss of De e ds ’ pe rf or manc e a s c ouns e l, t

he re is n o r e a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity that T ur ns wo uld have ple a de d g uil ty . T ur ns wa s in sis te nt o n h is i nn oc e nc e fr om t he tim e of

his in di ctme nt u

nti l th e da

y of the e vid e nti ary

he ari ng . T hr ou g ho ut t

he ple a ne g oti a tio n s ta g e of

thi s
ma tte r, he c on sis te ntl y

re fu se d to dis c us s th e ple a of fe r w ithDeeds and rej ecte d D e e ds ’ a dv ic e to
acc ept the plea

offe r. His self- serving statement now, afte r being convicted and sente nced, that he would have a cce pted t he plea offe r is simply disinge nuous in light of his repe ated pr otestations of inn oc e nc e and

his fl a t out r e fu sa ls t o d isc us s th e ple a of fe r pr ior to his tr ia l. Re g ard le ss o f D e e ds ’
c o u n s e l an d a d v i c e , t h e r e i s s i mp l y n o r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t T u r

n s w o u l d h a v e p l e a d e d

g u i l t y. Thus , Turn s wa s no t pr e

jud ic e d by De e ds ’ re pr e se ntatio n. Th e fa c t that Turn s now regrets his decision is no basis to gr ant the re quested re lief. Consequently , Turns’ c laim of in ef fe ct i ve assistance of counse l is meritless and the decision of the di strict court to dismiss his petition will be aff irmed. III . CO NC LU SION For the re asons set for

th above, the district c ourt’s orde r adoptin g t h e Magistrate J udg e’s Report and Rec ommendation and dismissing this action is AFF I RMED.