FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT D e c e m be r 22, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 16134 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 2 1 3 8 1 - C V- AJ Y O H A N H E RN A N D E Z , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 22, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Y o h a n H e rn a n d e z ap p e a ls th e o r d e ro f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t d e n ie d h is2

mo t i o n t o v a c a t e s e n t e n c e w i th o u tth e b e n e f i to f a n e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g . 2 8 U . S. C. § 2255. H e rna nde z a l l e ge d tha thi s tr i a l 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 f a i l i ng t o f

i l e a not i c e of

appe a l a s H e rna nde z ha d r e que s t e d. T he gove rnm e nt c o n c e d e s th a t H e rn a n d e z w a s im p r o p e r ly d e n ie d a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . W e a g r e e . W e vac at e the order of the di stri ctcourtand rem and t o the di stri ctcourtfor a n ev i d en t i ary h eari n g co n si st en tw i th o u r d eci si o n i n G o m ez-D i az v . U n i t ed S t at es, 43 3 F . 3d 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). I . B AC KG RO UN D O n F e brua ry 19, 2004, H e rna nde z pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r i ng t o p osse ss m ore than fi ve ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne, 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(A ), a nd 846, a nd one c ountof pos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e orc r i m e of

vi ol e nc e , 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) . T he f a c t s s t i pul a t e d i n the p le a c o llo q u y e s tab lis h e d th a t o n S e p te m b e r2 , 2 0 0 3 , H e rn a n d e z ’s c o - d e f e n d a n t, S a m ue l O va l , m e tw i th a n unde r c ove rof f i c e ra nd a gr e e d t o r e c rui ta c r e w t o r ob a drug supp l i erof 25 t o 3 0 k i l og ra m s of c ocai ne. A ta l at erm ee t i ng , O val i ntrodu ce d H ernand ez as hi s partner t o the offi ce r. A tl at erm ee t i ng s s t i l l , the three pl anned t he fi nal det ai l s of the robb ery. H ernand ez and O val bo th st at ed thatthey w ou l d b e a rm ed atthe t i m e of the robb ery a nd w ou l d t i e up anyon e they e n c o u n te r e d . T h e y w e r e to r e c e iv e 5 0 p e r c e n t o f th e s to le n d ru g s in r e tu rn f o rth e ir3

s e r vi c e s . O n the da y s c he dul e d f orthe r obbe ry , H e rna nde z pl a c e d a l oa de d . 38 T aurus r evol ver i n the ca r of the offi ce r. W hen t hey a rr i ved atthe l ocat i on w here th e r o b b e ry w a s to o c c u r , H e rn a n d e z a n d O v a l w e r e a rr e s te d . T he pl e a a gr e e m e nts t a t e d tha t , unl e s s H e rna nde z ’ s s e nt e nc e e xc e e de d the st atut ory m axi m um or w as the re sul tof an up w ar d d epar ture, H ernand ez w ai ved hi s r i gh tt o app ea l . T he P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eportes t abl i shed a t ot al of f e ns e l e ve l of

31 w i th a c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I I I , w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n a r a nge of 136 t o 168 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt . H e rna nde z obj e c t e d tha tone of the pr i or c onvi c t i ons us e d t o de t e r m i ne hi s c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gory w a s i n e rr or . T he U ni t e d S t a t e s f

i l e d m ot i ons f

ora one - l e ve l de c r e a s e f ort i m e l y a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd a dow nw a r d de pa r tur e ba s e d on s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our tove rrul e d H e rna nde z ’ s obj e c t i on a nd gr a nt e d both m ot i ons of the U ni t e d S t a t e s . T he c our ti m pos e d c ons e c ut i ve s e nt e nc e s of 84 m onths of i m pr i s onm e ntf

orthe c ons pi r a c y of

f e ns e a nd 60 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e ntf

orthe f ir e a r m o f f e n s e , f o ra to ta l o f

1 4 4 m o n th s . H e rna nde z di d notappe a l hi s c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e , buti ns t e a d f i l e d a m ot i on t o v ac at e hi s s ent ence . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5. H e a l l eged thathi s tri al coun se l re nd er ed i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance by fa i l i ng t o fi l e ano t i ce of appeal as H ernand ez re qu es t ed. H ernand ez cont ended t hathe spec i fi ca l l y a sked hi s c ou nsel t o app ea l4

the c ons e c ut i ve 60 m onth s e nt e nc e buttha thi s c ouns e l i nf or m e d hi m i tc oul d not be do ne base d o n the pl eaagre em ent . H ernand ez al so re qu es t ed an evi dent i ary he a r i ng. T he di stri ctcourtre fe rr ed the m att ert o a m agi stra t e j ud ge w ho foun d that H ernand ez had w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge construed H ernand ez ’ s m ot i on “ t o argue thatcoun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o fi l e a r e q u e s te d d ir e c t ap p e a l,” a n d f o u n d th a t c o u n s e l w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to pu rs ue a “ no nm er i t ori ou s a rgum ent . ” T he m agi stra t e j ud ge di d n otre com m end an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. H e rna nde z f i l e d obj e c t i ons t o the r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the r e por ta nd the r e c om m e nda t i on. H e rna nde z f

i l e d a m ot i on t o pr oc e e d i n f or m a pa upe r i s a nd f

i l e d a not i c e of appe a l a nd a m ot i on f

ora c e r t i f

i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on t o pr oc e e d i n f

or m a pa upe r i s butde ni e d the m ot i on f ora c e r t i f

i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty . H e rna nde z s oughta c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty f

r om thi s C our t , a nd i tw as grant ed w i th res pectt o the fol l ow i ng i ss ue: “ W hether the di stri ctcourterre d b y f i n d i n g th a tc o u n s e l wa s n o ti n e f f e c t i v e f o rf a i l i n g t o f

i l e a d i r e c tap p e a l ?” I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w de novo the l e ga l c onc l us i ons of the di s tr i c tc our ti n a pr oc e e di ng unde rs e c t i on 2255. G om e z - D i a z , 433 F . 3d a t790. W he the rc ouns e l i s i ne f f e c t i ve5

i s am i xed q uest i on of l aw and factthatthe C ou rtre vi ew s de nov o. U ni t ed S t at es v. B ender, 29 0 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 84 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON H ernand ez al l eged i n h i s m ot i on i n the di stri ctcourtthat , w hi l e hi s a tt orney i ni t i al l y app ea re d t o agree t o fi l e adi re ctappeal , the att orney then avo i ded spea ki ng w i th H ernand ez and n everfi l ed a not i ce of appeal . P ro se pl ea di ng s a re construed l i bera l l y, T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s tru e d H e rn a n d e z ’s f ilin g s to a lle g e th a t h is coun se l re nd er ed i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance by fa i l i ng t o fi l e ano t i ce of appeal that H e rn a n d e z e x p lic itly a s k e d h im to f ile . I n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, the S upr e m e C our the l d tha t , t o e s t a bl i s h a c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , a de f

e nda ntm us ts how tha t( 1) the p e r f o rm a n c e o f

c o u n s e l f

a ile d to m e e t “a n o b

je c tiv e s ta n d a r d o f

r e a s o n a b le n e s s ,” a nd ( 2) the r i ght s of

the de f e nda ntw e r e pr e

j udi c e d a s a r e s ul t . 466 U . S . 668, 688, 10 4 S . C t . 20 52 , 20 64 (198 4). In R oe v. F l ores -O rt ega, the S up re m e C ou rtappl i ed Str i c k l a n d t o th e f

a i l u r e b y a n a tt o rn e y t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f

ap p e a l . Th e Su p r e me C our the l d tha ta n a tt orne y w ho f a i l s t o f i l e a r e que s t e d appe a l a c t s i n a profes si on al l y unrea sonabl e m anner p er se . 528 U . S . 470, 477, 120 S . C t . 1029, 1 0 3 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e C o u r t w e n t o n to h o ld th a t, e v e n if a c lie n t h a s n o t s p e c if

ic a lly6

re qu es t ed thatan appeal be fi l ed, court s m usti nq ui re w hether the att orney m ade a re as on abl e e ff

ortt o i nform the cl i entabou tthe advant ages and d i sa dv ant ages of an appeal , and t o d et erm i ne the w i shes of the cl i ent . Id. T he fa i l ure t o fi l e a n app ea l r e q u e s te d b y a c lie n t v io la te s th e c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f th e d e f e n d a n t to c o u n s e l, a nd pr e j udi c e i s pr e s um e d. I d. a t483, 120 S . C t . a t1038. In G o m ez-D i az v . U n i t ed S t at es, th i s C o u rtap p l i ed S tri ck l an d an d F l o resO rt ega t o a si tuat i on si m i l art o the on e bef ore us. A ft erent er i ng i nt o a pl ea agre em entthati ncl ud ed a l i m i t ed se nt ence appeal w ai ver, G om ez -D i az fi l ed a pro se m ot i on un der s ec t i on 22 55 . 43 3 F . 3d 78 8, 79 0 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). T he di stri ct courtdi sm i ss ed the m ot i on w i tho utho l di ng an evi dent i ary hea ri ng . Id. T hi s C ou rt c o n s tru e d th e n o tic e o f

ap p e a l lib e r a lly to a lle g e th a t c o u n s e l h a d b e e n a s k e d to appe a l butf

a i l e d t o do s o. I d. a t791. T hi s C our tthe n va c a t e d the or de rde ny i ng G om ez -D i az ’ s m ot i on and rem anded t he m att ert o the di stri ctcourtt o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng t o d et erm i ne the nature of the com m un i ca t i on s betw ee n G om e z - D i a z a nd hi s a tt orne y . I d. a t793. W e e xpl a i ne d a s f ol l ow s the i nqui ry f

or th e e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g :

If th e e v id en ce es tab li sh es eith erth at P etit io n er ’s a tt orne y a c t e d c ontr a ry t o hi s c l i e nt ’ s w i s he s , ortha the f a ile d to f u lf ill h is d u ty to a tte m p t to d e te r m in e h is c l i e nt ’ s w i s he s , pr e

j udi c e i s t o be pr e s um e d, a nd P et i t i o n er i s en t i t l ed t o an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal , reg ard l ess of w he the rhe c a n i de nt i f

y a ny a r gua bl y m e r i t or i ous7 gr ounds f

orappe a l tha tw oul d f

i tone of the e xc e pt i ons c o n ta in e d in h is ap p e a l w a iv e r . I d . B e c a u s e H e rn a n d e z ’s p le a d in g s c a n b e s im ila r ly c o n s tru e d to a lle g e th a t h is c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to f

ile a r e q u e s te d ap p e a l, H ernand ez i s e nt i t l ed t o the ki nd of hear i ng desc ri bed i n G om ez -D i az . I V . CONCL US I ON W e vac at e the order of the di stri ctcourtand rem and for an evi dent i ary hear i ng consi st entw i th the i nstruct i on s i n G om ez -D i az . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.