2006 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 5-11-2006 

# U SA v . W right 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 . 03-3764

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_2006

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 2006 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 " U SA v . W r i ght " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1127. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1127H o n o r a b l e J o s e p h E . I r e n a s , S e n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y, * s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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 N o. 03- 3764 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. DE SM ON D WRI GH T a/k/ aDAY- DAY,

D esm o n dWrig ht, Appe l l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 01- cr - 00005- 2) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le W il li am H . Y o h n , Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 27, 2006 B efore: A M B R O and F U E N T E S , C i rcui tJudg es,

and I R E N A S, D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed M ay11, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Pet i t i oner - appel l antD es m ond W r i ght( “W r i ght ”) appea l s fr om an or derof the U nit ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a den y i ng his habeas cor pus mo t i o n t o v a c a t e , s e ta s i d e , o rc o r r e c th i s s e n t e n c e . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we a f f i r m. I. A s w e w r i t e fort he part i es , onl ya br i ef s um m aryof pert i nentfac t s and pr ocedur al his t oryi s necessary . O n O ct ob er 9, 20 01 , W ri gh tpled guil t yt o m anyfede ral off enses, i ncl udi ng: cons pi r acyt o comm i tarm ed bank r obbery ; arm ed bank r obbery ; us i ng, c a r r yi n g , a n d d i s c h a r g i n g a f i r e a r m d u r i n g a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o a n a r m e d b a n k r o b b e r y; u sin g f ire to c o m m it a f

e lo n y ; m a licio u s d e stru c tio n o f a b u ild in g in v o lv e d in in ter sta te comm er ce; cons pi r acyt o car j ack; at t empt ed ca r

j acki ng; us i ng, carr y i ng and br andi s hi ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o t he cons pi r acyt o car j ack a nd at t empt ed ca r

j acki ng; and pos s es s i on of fi r earm s bya convi ct ed fe l on. O n the eve of s ent enci ng, W r i ghtfi l ed a m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty p le a . A f te r a h e a ri n g , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th a t m o tio n . Itthen im p o sed a se n tenc e a t th e b o tt o m o f th e G u idelines ran g e f o ll o w ed b ym an d atory c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e s f o r a 7 5 0 -m o n th te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t. W r i ghtdi d notappea l . A l et t erfr om W r i ghtt o t he D i s t r i ctC our tC l erk, r ece i ved M ay23, 2002, w as i nt erpr et ed as a not i ce of appea l butw as di s m i s s ed on Sept ember30, 2 0 0 2 a s u n tim e ly . In th e in ter im , o n S e p tem b e r 8 , 2 0 0 2 , W rig h t f iled a p e tit io n f

o r a w ritWe r e v i e w de novo w h e th e r W ri g h t r e c e iv e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. 1 U ni t ed Stat es v. Kauf

m an , 1 0 9 F .3 d 1 8 6 , 1 8 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 3 of ha bea s corpus p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , a lle g in g , in tera lia , t hathe s uffe r ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el beca us e hi s t r i al couns el had fa i l ed t o fi l e a di r ect ap p ea l. T h e D istri ct C o u rth eld a n ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g , fo u n d n o m eritin W ri g h t’ s cl ai m s , and deni ed hi s pet i t i on. W e i s s ued a c ert i fi cat e of appeal abi l i t yon t he i s s ue of w h e th e r c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to f

ile a n a p p e a l. II. B e c a u se it i s u n d isp u ted th a t W rig h t’s tria l co u n se l d id n o t co n su lt w ith h im r egar di ng hi s r i ghtt o appea l pos t - s ent enci ng, ourdet erm i nat i on of thi s cas e i s contr ol l ed b y R oe v. F l or es - O r t ega , 528 U . S. 470 ( 2000) . T her e, t he Supr eme C our tl ai d outt he 1 “pr operfr amew or k foreval uat i ng an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , bas ed on couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l w i t h r es pondent ’ s cons ent . ” Id . a t 4 7 3 . B e c a u se th e q u e stio n c o n c e rn e d w h e th e r c o u n se l’s re p re se n tatio n w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly defe ct i ve, t he C our thel d thatt he fa m i l i art w o- par tt es tannounce d i n Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668 ( 1984) , governed i t s i nqui r y . 528 U . S. at476- 77. A ppl y i ng t he Str i ckland s t andar d t o t he part i cul arfac t s befor e i t , t he C our tdet erm i ned that“couns el had a c ons t i tut i onal l yi m pos ed dutyt o cons ul tw i t h t he def endantaboutan appe al w hen t her e i s r eas on t o t hi nk ei t her( 1) t hata r at i onal defe ndantw oul d w antt o appea l ( for exampl e, beca us e ther e ar e nonfr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l ) , or( 2) t hatt hi s par t i cul ar4

defe ndantr eas onabl ydemonst r at ed t o couns el t hathe w as i nt er es t ed i n appea l i ng. ” Id . at 480. T h e C o u r tf

u r t h e re x p l a i n e d t h a ti t“ e m p l o y[ e d ] t h e t e r m ‘ c o n s u l t ’ t o c o n v e y a s peci fi c meani ng— advi s i ng t he def endantaboutt he adva nt ages and di s advant ages of t aki ng an appe al , and maki ng a r eas onabl e ef for tt o di s covert he def

endant ’ s w i s hes . ” Id . a t 4 7 8 . A d d iti o n a lly , itin stru c ted th a t co u rts u n d e rta k in g th is in q u iry , as w ith a ll i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s , “t ake i nt o acc ountal l t he i nform at i on couns el knew or s houl d have know n. ” Id . at480 ( ci t i ng Str i ckland , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 0 ). W ith re sp e c t to Str i ckland ’ s pr ej udi ce pr ong, t he C our tappl i ed a ha r m l es s err ori nqui ry , and hel d t hat rel i ef co uld not be grant ed u nles s the d efen dan tcou l d “d em on strat e t hat there i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s defi ci entfai l ur e t o cons ul tw i t h hi m about an appe al , he w oul d have t i m el yappea l ed. ” Id . at484. W rig h t ar g u e s th a t F l or es - O r t ega s t ands fort he pr opos i t i on “thatcouns el had a cons t i tut i onal l yi m pos ed dutyt o cons ul tw i t h a def endantaboutan appe al . . . . ” The ad o p ti o n o f su ch a b ri g h t- li n e ru le, h o w ev er, w as e x p resslyrejected in tha t case : “[W ]e cannots ay , as a c o n stitu tio n a l m a tter, th a t in e v e ryc a se c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to c o n su lt w ith t he def endantaboutan appe al i s nece s s ar i l yunr eas onabl e and ther efor e def i ci ent . ” Id . at 47 9 (em ph asi s i n text ) ( con cl ud i ng “[w ]e . . . rej ecta bri gh t -l i ne rul e t hat coun sel m ust al w ay s cons ul tw i t h t he def endantr egar di ng an appe al ”) . M or eover , t he C our tpr ovi ded a n e x a m p le o f

w h e n a “ m e c h a n istic [ b rig h t-line ] ru le” w o u ld b e in c o n sis ten t w ith b o th its5

“dec i s i on i n Str i ckland

and comm on s ens e. ” Id . Forexampl e, s uppos e thata def endantcons ul t s w i t h couns el ; couns el advi s es t he def

endantt hata gui l t ypl ea pr obabl yw i l l l ead t o a 2 y ear sen tenc e; th e d ef

en d an t exp resse s satisfac ti o n an d p lead s g u il ty ; th e c o u rt s e n t e n c e s t h e d e f

e n d a n tt o 2 y e a r s ’ i mp r i s o n me n ta s e x p e c t e d a n d i n f o r ms t he def endantof hi s appea l r i ght s ; t he def endantdoes notexpr es s any i nt er es ti n appea l i ng, and couns el concl udes t hatt her e ar e no nonfr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , i tw oul d be di ffi cul tt o s ay th a t co u n se l is “ p ro f

e ss io n a llyu n re a so n a b le,” a s a c o n stitu tio n a l m a tter, in notcons ul t i ng w i t h s uch a de fenda ntr egar di ng an appe al . O r , forexampl e, s uppos e a s ent enci ng cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons t o a def endantabouthi s appea l r i ght s i n a part i cul arcas e ar e s o cl earand i nform at i ve as t o s ubs t i tut e for c o u n se l’s d u tyto c o n su lt. Id . a t 4 7 9 -8 0 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T h a ti s t h e c a s e h e r e . As n o t e d , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r th e l d a n e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g . At t he conc l us i on of thathear i ng, i tcr edi t ed def ens e couns el ’ s t es t i m onyt hathe cons ul t ed w ith W rig h t ab o u t h is rig h ts to trial a n d a p lea , d isc u ss e d th e e f f e c t o f e a c h a n d h is l i m i t ed r i ght s t o appea l , advi s ed W r i ghtof the cons equenc es of pl eadi ng gui l t y , di s cus s ed th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s , a n d w a s a d v is e d b yW ri g h t th a t h e w is h e d to p le a d g u ilty. T he r ecor d al s o es t abl i s hes t hatW r i ghtr ece i ved the s hor t es ts ent ence pos s i bl e undert he G u id e lin e s a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f u llya n d c o m p lete lya d v ise d W rig h t o f h is rig h t to appea l bot h dur i ng t he pl ea c ol l oquyand i m m edi at el yaft erhe w as s ent ence d. A l t hough W r i ghtt es t i fi ed thathe w ant ed t o appea l beca us e couns el had a s t r at egy on appea l t hatw oul d al l ow hi s cons ecut i ve s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y , t hi s cl ai m w as found t o be notcr edi bl e bythe D i s t r i ctC our t . I ndeed, W r i ght ’ s s ent ence s r an cons ecut i vel yas a mat t erof l aw — a fa ctt hatno appea l coul d over come. W e ca nnot6

concl ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatW r i ghtdi d notexpr es s anyi nt er es ti n an a p p e a l w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . U ni t ed Stat es v. G am bi no , 864 F. 2d 1064, 1071 n. 3 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (no ti n g that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s fo ll o w ing an ev iden ti ary h e a r i n g i n a § 2 2 5 5 p r o c e e d i n g a r e s u b j e c tt o c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s r e v i e w) . No rc a n we d isa g re e w ith d e f

e n se c o u n se l th a t W rig h t re c e iv e d th e b e n e f it o f h is b a rg a in a n d th e re is n o n o n frivo lou s g rou n d fo r an ap p ea l. A cc o rdin g ly , u n d er F l or es - O r t ega , co u n sel’s act i ons w er e notunr eas onabl e and W r i ghti s ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef. * * * * * F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.