FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 93 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 07 -0 02 61 -CV-3 -LAC/M D,

06 -0 01 11 -CR- 3- L CHRIS TOPHER MICHAEL STANTON, a.k .a. Chr is to ph er St an to n, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 23 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, MAR TIN andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ch ris to ph er St an to n app eal s t he de ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n fo r

habe as rel ie f. Sta nt on co nt en ds —an d t he Gov ern m en t co nc ed es —t he di st ric t co urt erredin fin di ng hi s co un se l was no t i ne ffec ti ve forfai li ng to fil e a d ire ct ap pe al . Afterrev ie w, we rev ers e an d re m an d the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f

1 St an to n’s § 22 55 m ot io n. 2 A di rectap pe al of afed eral co nv ic ti onis a m at te r of rig ht . Rod

ri qu ezv. Uni te d Sta tes , 39 5 U.S. 3 27 , 32 9– 30 (19 69 ). “ [A] lawy er wh o d is reg ard s s pe ci fic in st ru ct io ns fro m

th e d efen dantto fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al act s i n am an ne r th atis pr of es si on al ly unr eas on ab le .” Roe v. Flo re s- Ort ega , 52 8 U.S. 4 70 , 47 7 (2 00 0) . In cas es wher e th e d efen da ntha s n otin st ru ct edco un se l t o fi le anap pe al , cou ns el ne ve rth el es s h as a “ co ns ti tu ti on al ly im po se d dut y

to co ns ul t wi th th e d efen da nt ab ou t anap pe al when . . . [th e] part ic ul ar d efen da ntreas on ab ly dem on strat edto co un se l t ha t h e was in te res te d i n app eal in g.” Id. at48 0. Th e duty to co ns ul t

“ requi res in fo rm in g acli en t ab ou t h is rig htto ap pe al , adv is in g t he cli en t ab ou t t he Specifica lly , the Gover

nment conce des Stanton’s counsel f ailed to “c onsult” with him 1 about an a

ppeal, a s that term has be en def ined by binding pr ece dent. The G overnme nt does not conce de counse l disreg arde d Stanton’s reque st to file a direc t appea l. We do not consider this latter issue a s counsel’s f

ailure to c onsult entitl es Stanton to the only relief he see ks on appea l. When review ing thedenial of a § 2255 motion, we revie w a district cour t’s fac tual 2 finding s for c lear

err or and le g al issues de novo . Lynn v. United States , 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). An inef fec tive assistance of counse l claim is a mix ed question of law and fa ct that is subject to de novo revie w. Caderno v. United States , 256 F.3d 1213, 1216–17 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 2adva nt ag es an d d is adva nt ag es of t ak in g a n app eal , an d m ak in g areas on ab le effo rt

to de te rm in e whe th er the cli en t wi sh es to pu rs ue anap pe al , reg ard le ss of t he m eri ts of s uc h a n app eal .” Th omp so n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 50 4 F .3d12 03 , 12 06 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). In c as es wher e co un se l h as fai le d t o c on du cta pr op er co ns ul ta ti on , th e de fen da ntm

us t d em on st rat e “ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor co un se l’s d efi ci en t fa il ur e to co ns ul t wi th hi m ab ou t an ap pe al , he wo ul d h av e ti m el y ap pe al ed .” Roe , 52 8 U.S. at48 4. In Th omp so n , we add res se d t he is su e o f ad equa cy of c on su lt at io n. 5 04 F.3d at12 06 . Und is pu te d t es ti m on y in Th omp so n sh owe d (1 ) Tho m ps on ex pr es se d t o co un se l t ha t h e was un happ y with h is sen te nc e d ire ct ly after t he co urt i m po se d i t; (2 ) co un se l t ol d Th om

ps on he ha d arig htto ap pe al , bu t n ot edhe di d n otth in k a n ap pe al wou ldbe wort hwh il e, wit ho utex pl ai ni ng th e rea so ni ng be hi ndth is po si ti on ; (3 ) Tho m

ps on res po nd ed“ fin e; ” an d (4 ) th e ex ch an ge las te d n o m or e th anfiv e m in ut es . Id. at12 07 . Cit in g Roe , we con cl ud edth e co ns ul ta ti on was in ad equa te , st at in g “ [s ]im pl y ass ert in g t he vi ew th atanap pe al wou ldno t b e su cces sf ul do es no t co ns ti tu te ‘ co ns ul ta ti on ’ in an y m ean in gf

ul sen se .” Id. W e he ldth atco un se l m ad e n o e ffo rt “ to di sc ov er Th om ps on ’s in fo rm edwis he s reg ard in g a n app eal ,” an d c on cl ud edev id en ce t ha t Th om ps on was d is sa ti sf

ie d

3wit h h is sen te nc e an d a sk edhi s at to rn ey ab ou t ap pe al in g was su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th e requi si te pre

jud ic e. Id. at12 07 –0 8. Here, the re i s n o d is pu te Sta nt on reas on ab ly dem on st rat edanin te res t i n ap pe al in g. Co un se l ad m it te d S ta nt on (1) reque st edanap pe al aft er the jury returne d i ts ve rd ic t, an d (2 ) no dd edhi s h eadwhen co un se l t ol d h im th ere wer e n o ap pe al ab le is su es . In l ig htof t hi s ev id en ce, the Gov ern m en t h as co nc ed edSta nt on

“ reas on ab ly dem on st rat edto [co un se l] th athe was i nt eres te d i n app eal in g,” an d th atco un se l “ ha d adu ty to co ns ul t wi th [St an to n] ab ou t an ap pe al .” W e ag ree. Co un se l’s s ta te m en t tha t the re were no ap pe al ab le is su es witho utfurth er ex pl an at io n d idno t co ns ti tu te ad equa te co ns ul ta ti on . Se e Th omp so n , 50 4 F .3dat 12 06 –0 7. Mo reo ve r, Sta nt on ha s d em on strat edth at , bu t fo r co un se l’s fa il ur e to pe rfec t an ap pe al onhi s b eh al f, he wou ldha ve ap pe al ed . Stan to n e xp res se d in te res t i n h is ap pe al , andreque st edco un se l’s h el p i n re du ci ng hi s s en te nc e. The refo re, the re i s a r eas on ab ly pro babi li ty Stan to n wo ul d h av e ex erci se d h is rig ht to ap pe al . St an to n i s en ti tl edto pu rs ue anou t-o f-t im e ap pe al of h is co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e an d re m an d t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f St an to n’s § 22 55 m ot io n. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 4