FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 15819 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -001 49 -C R -T -N U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s W E N D E L L L A M A R W I L S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 17, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: W e nde l l W i l s on appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orc a rry i ng a f

i r e a r m dur i ng a drug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) , on the gr ounds of i ne f f e c t i veWils on do e s no t c halleng ethevalidity of thee ntr y of hisple a of guilt, his p le a

agre e ment, 1 or there a so na

blene ss o f his s e ntenc e . There fo re , h eha s a ba ndon e d a ny argumentswith re sp e c t to tho seiss ue s. Se eUnite d St ate s v . B la sc o, 70 2 F .2 d 1 31 5, 13 32 n. 28 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 3) . Wil so n also did not seek review of thedenial of his o th er§ 2255 claims and ha s not obtained a c ertificate of a pp e ala bil ity a s re quired by

28 U. S.C. § 2 25 3( c ). Se eUnite d St ate s v . F utch, 51 8 F .3 d 8 87 (1 1th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed, (No. 07-11264) (Jun. 2, 2008). Thus, on appe al, our review does no t in c ludereview o f t

hedenial of

Wils on ’sremaining§ 2 25 5 c laims .

2 as si st ance of coun se l . U po n revi ew , w e dec l i ne t o revi ew W i l son’ s i neff ec t i ve- 1 a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m a nd w e a f f i r m W i l s on’ s c onvi c t i on. W i l son p l ea ded g ui l ty t o v i ol at i ng § 9 24 (c ) pursuantt o a w ri tt en pl ea agre em ent . T he t erm s of the agree m enti ncl ud ed a w ai ver of app ea l i n w hi ch W i l son agreed nott o chal l enge hi s s ent ence on di re ctappeal or i n a col l at er al att ac k excepti n the ca se of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . A tthe change-of-pl ea he a r i ng, the c our tc onf

i r m e d tha tW i l s on w a s s a t i s f i e d w i th c ouns e l a nd unde r s t ood the pl e a a gr e e m e nt . F i ndi ng tha tthe pl e a w a s m a de know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y , the co u rtad j u d i cat ed W i l so n g u i l ty. W i l so n w as sen t en ced t o fi v e years’ i m pri sonm ent , the m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence for hi s off ense . W ils o n d id n o t f

ile a d ir e c t ap p e a l, b u t in s te a d f ile d a m o tio n to v a c a te h is se nt ence un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, al l egi ng i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l for, in te ra lia , c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to f

ile a d ir e c t ap p e a l. T h e c o u r t g r a n te d th e m o tio n in p a r t a n d r e - e n te r e d th e ju d g m e n t w ith th e s a m e s e n te n c e , th u s r e n e w in g th e tim e in w hi c h t o f

i l e a di r e c tappe a l . W i l s on the n f i l e d hi s di r e c tappe a l , w hi c h i s be f or e us no w . O n app ea l , W i l son argues thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o rem and b ec ause hi s tri al3

c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by ( 1) f a i l i ng t o f

i l e a m ot i on t o di s m i s s the in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t h im d u e to v io la tio n o f th e S p e e d y T r ia l C la u s e o f th e S ix th A m en d m en t ; an d (2 ) fai l i n g t o sp en d ad eq u at e t i m e i n p rep arat i o n o f h i s d efen se d u e to h is b u s ytr ia l s c h e d u le . B o th th is c o u r t a n d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a v e in d ic a te d th a t it is p r e f e r ab le to de c i de c l a i m s of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l on c ol l a t e r a l r e vi e w . M a s s a r o v. U ni t ed S t at es , 53 8 U . S . 50 0, 50 4, 12 3 S . C t . 16 90 , 16 94 , 15 5 L . E d. 2d 71 4 (20 03 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. B ender, 29 0 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 84 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). H ow ever , w e a re no tprec l ud ed fr om re vi ew i ng i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l cl ai m s a s partof a di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l w he r e the r e c or d i s s uf f i c i e nt l y de ve l ope d. M a s s a r o, 538 U .S . a t 5 0 4 ; B e n d e r , 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 2 8 4 .

“ W hether acr i m i nal defe nd ant ’ s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve i s am i xed q u e s tio n o f

la w a n d f

a c t, s u b je c t to d e n o v o r e v ie w .” B e n d e r , 2 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 . A cl ai m of i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance w i l l no tbe sust ai ned u nl es s the defendantsa t i sf i es tw o pr ongs ; the de f

e nda ntm us ts how both tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e “ f

e l l be l ow an o b j ect i v e st an d ard o f reaso n ab l en ess” an d th atth e d efen d an tw as p rej u d i ced as a r e s ul t . S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 687- 88, 690, 694, 104 S . C t . 2052, 2 0 6 4 , 2 0 6 6 , 2 0 6 8 , 8 0 L .E d .2 d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T hi s c ou rthas hel d thatthe entry of a pl eaw ai ves a l l no n-j uri sdi ct i on alIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this cour

t 2 held that all dec isions handed down by the former F ifth Circuit beforethe clos e of business on September 3 0, 19 81 , a

rebindingpre c e dent in th eEl e venth Circ uit . 4 de f e c t s oc c urr i ng pr i ort o the t i m e of the pl e a , i nc l udi ng vi ol a t i ons of the de f e nda nt ’ s r i ght s t o a s pe e dy tr i a l . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y uni s , 723 F . 2d 795, 795 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( h o ld in g th a t g u ilty p le aw a iv e d a ll n o n - ju r is d ic tio n a l d e f

e c ts in c lu d in g r ig h t to s p e e d y tr ia l) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . S a ld a n a , 5 0 5 F .2 d 6 2 8 , 6 2 8 ( 5 th C i r. 19 74 ) (hol di ng thatgu i l ty pl eaw ai ved S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o speedy tri al ).

2 B ec ause the di stri ctcourtdi d n otaddres s the cl ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of c ouns e l dur i ng W i l s on’ s pr os e c ut i on orthe l i t i ga t i on of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m o ti o n , an d th e r ec o rd o n ap p ea l d o es n o t estab li sh w h eth ero r n o t co u n se l’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s de f

i c i e ntorpr e

j udi c e d W i l s on, r e vi e w of the c l a i m s i s not appr opr i a t e a tthi s t i m e . T o the e xt e ntW i l s on c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i on on c ons t i tut i ona l s pe e dy tr i a l gr ounds , the e ntry of hi s gui l ty pl e a w a i ve d a ny v io lati o n o f h is rig h t t o a s p ee d y trial. A cc o rd in g ly, w e A F F IR M W il so n ’s c onvi c t i on.