# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 12 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Ton y a Jo hn so n Hyles

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 4, 2 01 4 Fil ed : J un e 6 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Ton y a Jo hn so n Hy le s (“ H y le s” ) of co ns pi racy to us e in te rs ta te faci li ti es to co m

m it m ur d e r f o r hi re in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 58 (a), ai di ng an d
ab et ti ng m

ur de r fo r hi re in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 an d 19 58
, po ss es si ng a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a cri m e of vi ol en ce in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 )(A)(i ), an d

co ns pi racy to de li ve r a fir earm to a fel on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d37 1. Sh e was se nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t pl u s f

i v e years , an d th ree y ears of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Hy le s m ov ed un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 to va cat e he r se nt en ce, al le gi ng in e f

f ect iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed he r m ot io n 1
wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Sh e ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §
12 91 , th is co ur t af

fir m s.

I.

The fact s of th is cas e are se t fo rth in Uni te d St at es v. Hyle s , 52 1 F.3 d 94 6 (8 th
Ci r. 20 08 ), Uni te d St at es v. Ca nn on , 47 5 F.3 d 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), an d Uni te d St at es

v. Tyr es e Hyle s , 47 9 F.3 d 95 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Rei te rat ed he re are th e fact s rel ev an t

to Hy le s’s cu rren t ap pe al

.

On Aug us t 10
, 20 00
, in Caru th ers vi ll e, Mi ss ou ri, Co y L. Sm ith te st ifi ed ag ai ns t Ty res e D. Hy le s (“ Ty

res e”), Hy le s’s hu sb an d (th en bo y fri en d)

. Afte r th e pr el im in ary he ari ng in th e st at e dr

ug cas e, Ty

r e s e de vi se d a pl an to m ur de r Sm it h. He as ke d
Dav id L. Cart e r , hi s cel lm at e at th e co un ty jail
, to ki ll Sm it h. Ty res e pr om is ed to ha ve Hy le s ba il Cart er ou t of jail
, an d to gi ve hi m a 19 84 Po nt ia c in ex ch an ge fo r th e

m ur de r. Cart er ag reed

. Tha t sa m e da y , Hy le s ba il ed Cart er ou t of jail
, li st in g th e car

as co ll at eral an d t el li ng th e b on ds m an sh e h ad jus t s ol d t he car t o h im

.

Th a t aft ern oo n, Hy le s as ke d Sam ue l And ers on to bo rro w a gu n. And ers on
ag reed to gi ve he r th e gu n an d sa id he wou ld br in g i t t o h e r ho us e. Acco rd in g to And ers on , Hy le s sa id “ th at ’s fu ck ed up th at Co y ha d te st ifi ed ag ai ns t Ty res e” an d

“ th at sh e’s go in g to ge t so m eb od y to ta ke care of hi s as s.” Fi ve to te n m in ut es la te r, And ers on br ou gh t a Bere tt a st ai nl es s st eel gu n to Hy le s’s res id en ce. He ha nd ed he r th e gu n an d to ld he r to pl ace i t i n t h e c ab in et

. Cart er, who was hi di ng in Hy le s’s

The Ho n o r a b l e Hen ry Edwar d Aut rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ho us e whe n th e gu n was de li ve red
, ret rie ve d it fro m th e cab in et an d le ft. Cart er ne ve r

ki ll ed Sm it h. In st ead , he r et ur ne d t he gu n t o An de rs on a co up le of d ay s l at er.

Abo ut th e sa m e ti m e, Ty

res e an d Hy le s were al so arra ng in g to ha ve Am es he o D. Can no n ki ll Sm it h. Ph on e reco rd s, fro m th e ev en in g of Aug us t 10
, sh owe d se ve ral ph on e cal ls fro m Ty

res e’s cel l at th e co un ty jail to Hy le s’s res id en ce— in cl ud in g cal ls

at 7: 50 an d 8: 34

. The re w e r e a ls o fo ur cal ls fro m Can no n’s m ot he r’s ho us e in
Mem ph is
, to Hy le s’s ho us e in Caru th ers vi ll e—a t 8: 11
, 8: 23
, 8: 39
, an d 8: 43

. The la st cal l l as te d 5 1 m in ut es , ov erl ap pi ng wit h t he sec on d c al l fr om Ty res e’s jail cel l.

Apr il Leat he rwo od
, Can no n’s gi rlf rie nd
, te st ifi ed th at , on Aug us t 14
, Can no n cal le d he r fro m Mem

ph is
, sa y in g th at Hy le s was dri vi ng hi m to Caru th ers vi ll e fro m Mem ph is

. Hen dr ie tt a Nich ol s, al so Can no n’s gi rlf rie nd
, te st ifi ed th at sh e an d Hy le s dr ov e to Mem

p h i s t o p i c k h im up an d he dr ov e th em al l ba ck to Caru th ers vi ll e. A

co up le of da y s la te r, And ers on ga ve Can no n th e sa m e gu n he ha d or ig in a l ly gi ve n Hy le s. He te st ifi ed he sa w Can no n ge t ou t of th e pa ss en ge r si de of Hy le s’s Po nt ia c, bu t co ul d no t se e th e dr iv er. Acco rd in g to And ers on , Can no n st at ed th at he was go in g
to “ ta ke care of t ha t fo r Ty res e.”

On Aug us t 20
, Hy le s an d Can no n dr ov e by Sm it h’s ho us e. Hy le s was dr iv in g th e Po nt ia c, wit h Can no n in th e pa ss en ge r se at

. Hy le s an d Can no n wen t to th e co un ty jail to ta lk to Ty

res e. The y were se en y el li ng up to Ty res e’s cel l win do w fro m ou ts id e th e jail

. The ne xt m or ni ng , on Aug us t 21
, th e po li ce fo un d Sm it h sh ot t o d e a t h in
be d.

On Ju ne 11
, 20 01
, Hy le s si gn ed a pr of fer l e t te r wit h th e go ve rn m en t. It

co nt ai ne d a n a gr eem en t t o “ en ga ge in ne go ti at io ns in vo lv in g sp eci fic co nc es si on s” by th e go ve rn m en t in ex ch an ge fo r fu rth er co op erat io n if th e go ve rn m en t be li ev ed th e in fo rm at io n in th e pr of

fer was “ tru th fu l
, c a n di d an d m eri to rio us .” Pu rs ua nt to th e

-3

-pr of

fer le tt er, Hy le s te st ifi ed be fo re a gr an d jury on Octo be r 18
, 20 01

. The

go ve rn m en t l at er d et erm in ed Hy le s was un tru th fu l an d b eg an to pro se cu te he r.

Hy le s m ai nt ai ns th at he r at to rn ey ad vi se d he r th at sh e ha d en te red in to a

non- pr ose cu tio n ag reem en t aft er he r pr of fer le tt er bu t be fo re he r gr an d jury te sti m ony

. No s uc h a gr eem en t ev er ex is te d. Hyl es , 52 1 F .3d at 9 53

.

II.

Hy le s al le ge s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f c o u n s el whe n he r tri al co un se l (1 )
ad vi se d he r to en te r in to a pr of fer ag reem en t to pr ov id e st at em en ts to th e go ve rn m en t

an d gr an d jury an d (2 ) to ld he r sh e ha d en te red in to a no n- pr os ecu ti on ag reem en t wit h
th e go ve rn m en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Hy le s’s § 22 55 m ot io n w i t h o u t an

ev id en ti ary h eari ng

. Hy le s arg ue s o n a pp eal th at th e d is tri ct co ur t erre d in de nyin g he r m ot io n. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws “ th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce is su e de no vo , bu t fin di ng s of un de rlyin g pr ed ic at e fact s are rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r.” And er so n v. Unit

ed
St at es , 39 3 F .3d 74 9, 7 53 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

To sh ow in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, a m ov an t “ m us t de m on st rat e: (1 ) hi s
at to rn ey ’s pe rfo rm an c e was de fic ie nt an d fel l ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le

pr of es si on al as si st an ce; an d (2 ) he su ffer ed pr ejud ic e b y s h o win g th at , ab se nt

co un se l’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce, th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e
pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” Unit ed St at es v. Tay lo r , 25 8 F.3 d 81 5, 81 8 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ), ci ti ng St

ri ck la nd v. Wa sh in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 (19 84 ).

Fai lu re to es ta bl is h ei th er pr on g of St ri ckl an d “ is fat al to a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce.” Mo re lo s v. Unit ed St at es , 70 9 F.3 d 12 46
, 12 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Bec au se Hy le s can no t sh ow pr ejud ic e, th i s c o u r t de cl in es to ad dr es s whe th er he r at to rn ey ’s

pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt

.

-4

-The on ly pr ejud ic e Hy le s id en ti fie s is ad m is si on of he r gr an d jury te st im on y

at tri al

. Hy le s in si st s sh e wou ld no t ha ve te st ifi ed be fo re th e gr an d jury if he r co un se l
ha d no t to ld he r ab ou t th e al le g e d n o n

- p r os ecu ti on ag reem en t. Hy le s’s gr an d jury

te st im on y ad m it te d at tri al was : (1 ) sh e was pr es en t in co ur t fo r Sm it h’s te st im on y at th e pr el im in ary he ari ng ; (2 ) Ty res e as ke d he r vi a te le ph on e to bo nd Cart er ou t of jail ; (3 ) sh e si gn ed th e bo nd do cu m en ts to ge t Cart er o u t o f jail ; (4 ) sh e m ad e

arra ng em en ts to ha ve And er s o n br in g th e gu n to he r ho us e; (5 ) sh e m ad e

arra ng em en ts to ha ve Cart er pi ck up th e gu n; an d (6 ) And ers on go t th e gu n ba ck fro m Cart er.

Thi s gr an d jury te st im on y was cu m ul at iv e of ot he r tri al ev id en ce. The re is no

“ reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t”
ha d Hy le s no t te st ifi ed be fo re th e gr an d jury. Se e Tay lo r , 25 8 F.3 d at 81 8. Cf

. Sm it h

v. Fi re st on e Tir e & Rub be r Co

. , 75 5 F.2 d 1 2 9
, 1 32 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (“ Im pr op er ad m is si on of ev id en ce whi ch is cu m ul at iv e of m at te rs sh own by ad m is si bl e ev id en ce is ha rm le ss erro r.”). C a r t e r t e s ti fie d th at (1 ) he an d Hy le s were bo th pr es en t at Tyr e se ’s pr el im in ary he ari ng , an d (2 ) he pi ck ed up th e gu n fro m Hy le s’s h o u s e

. Cart er’s bo nd do cu m en ts , sh owi ng Hy le s’s si gn at ur e, were ad m it te d at tri al
, an d th e ba il bo nd sm an te st ifi ed th at Hy le s bo nd ed Cart er ou t of jail

. And ers on te st ifi ed th at ( 1 ) Hy le s as ke d hi m fo r a gu n, (2 ) he ga ve it to he r at th e ho us e, an d (3 ) he la t e r
ret rie ve d t he gu n fr om

Cart er.

Hy le s al so te st ifi ed sh e di d no t in it ia ll y kn ow why Ty res e a s k e d he r to bo nd
C a r t e r ou t of jail

. Si nc e th is te st im on y was fav or ab le to Hy le s, it can no t co ns ti tu te

pr ejud ic e un de r St ri ckl an d

. Hy le s te st ifi ed th at Ty res e ev en tu al ly to ld he r th e reas on fo r bo nd in g Cart er ou t, bu t ot he r tri al te st im on y su pp or te d Hy le s’s k n o w l ed ge of Tyr e s e ’s m ot iv at io n. Fo r ex am pl e, And ers on te st ifi ed th at Hy le s as ke d fo r a gu n be cau se sh e was “ go in g t o g et so m eb od y to tak e car e o f” Sm it h.

-5

-Hy le s ack no wled ge s th at “ th e te st im on y of And ers on an d Cart er was

co rro bo rat ed by [h er] o w n a d mi ss io ns ,” bu t co m pl ai ns th is un de rcu t he r ab il it y to

at ta ck th ei r cred ib il it y

. As th is co ur t no te d, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of he r gu il t

ev en wit ho ut th ei r te st im on y :

[T]he Gov ern m en t

. . . s h owe d [Hy le s] k no win gl y joi ne d a co ns pi racy wit h Can no n to m

ur de r Sm it h. The Gov ern m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce th at

se ve ral ph on e cal ls were pl aced f ro m Can no n’s res id en ce to Hy le s’s

aro un d th e sa m e ti m e Hy le s an d Ty res e were con sp iri ng wit h Cart er to ki ll Sm it h, th at Hy le s dr ov e to Mem ph is to pi ck up Can no n an d br i ng hi m to Caru th ers vi ll e a few da y s be fo re th e m ur de r, an d th at Hy le s dr ov e Can no n b y

Sm it h’s h ou se th e ev en in g b efo re t he m ur de r.

Hyl es , 52 1 F .3d at 9 55

.

In li gh t of th e cu m

ul at iv e an d im m at eri al na tu re of he r gr an d jury te st im on y , Hy le s ca nn ot m eet th e St ri ckl an d pre jud ic e p ro ng

.

III.

Hy le s arg ue s th at he r co un se l was in effe ct iv e in ad vi si ng he r no t to acce pt th e
go ve rn m en t’s pl ea of

fer. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Hy le s’s § 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. S he ap pe al s, cl ai m in g th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g he r

m ot io n a nd ab us ed it s d is cret io n b y no t h ol di ng a he ari ng

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws “ th e in effe ct iv e a s s is ta nc e is su e de no vo , bu t fin di ng s of

un de rlyin g pr ed ic at e fact s are rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r.” And er so n , 39 3 F.3 d at 75 3.
A di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on a § 22 55 m ot io n may b e

rev ers ed on ly fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Wi nt er s v. U n i t e d S ta te s , 7 16 F.3 d 10 98
, 11 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). A § 22 55 m ot io n m ay be di sm is se d wit ho ut a he ari ng if (1 ) th e cri m in al de fen da nt ’s al le ga ti on s, acce pt ed as tru e, wou ld no t en t i t l e h im or he r to

-6

-rel ie f; or (2 ) th e al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed as tru e be cau se th ey are co nt rad ic te d

by th e reco rd
, are in he ren tl y in cred ib le
, or are co nc lu si on s rat he r th an st at em en ts of
fact

. Id

. at 1 10 3.

Ass um in g he r at to rn ey ad vi se d he r to reject th e pl ea, Hy le s can no t pr ov e th at 2
he r co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie n t

. Th is co ur t’s sc ru ti ny of co un se l’s

pe rfo rm an ce is “ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l,” pre su m in g t ha t cou ns el ’s co nd uc t “ fal ls wit hi n th e wid e ran ge of reas on ab le pr of es si on al as si st an ce.” Osb or ne v. Purk et t , 41 1 F.3 d
91 1, 91 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Th i s c ou rt do es no t “ se co nd -g ue ss st rat eg ic de ci si on s or

ex pl oi t th e be ne fit s of hi nd si gh t.” Id

. As ev id en t in he r di rect ap pe al
, Hy le s’s cl ai m s
at ta ck in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce were co lo rab le

. Hyl es , 52 1 F.3 d at 95 4- 56

. Any ad vi ce th at sh e ho ld th e go ve rn m en t to it s bu rd en at tri al is no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly

un reas on ab le

.

Hy le s al so can no t m eet St ri ckl an d ’s se co nd pr on g. Sh e m ai nt ai ne d he r in no cen ce at tri al
, at se nt en ci ng , an d on ap pe al

. Not hi ng in th e reco rd in di cat es sh e

wan te d to acce pt th e pl ea of fer an d wou ld ha ve a c k no wled ge d he r gu il t ev en if

pr op erl y ad vi se d ab ou t th e ris ks of tri al

. Se e Sa nd er s v. Unit ed St at es , 34 1 F.3 d 72 0,
72 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ A de fen da nt who m ai nt ai ns hi s in no cen ce at al l th e st ag es of hi s cri m in al pro se cu ti on an d sh ows no in di cat io n th at he wou ld be wil li ng to ad m it hi s
gu il t un de rm in es hi s la te r § 22 55 cl ai m th at he wou ld ha ve pl ead ed gu il ty if on ly he
ha d rece iv ed be tt er ad vi ce fro m hi s la wy er.”) ; Unit ed St at es v. St even s , 14 9 F.3 d 74 7,
74 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (“ Eve n if co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce were so m eh ow i n a d e q u at e, St ev en s fai le d to es ta b l is h th at th ere was an y reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at he wou ld
ha ve ack no wled ge d hi s gu il t ha d he be en pr op erl y ad vi se d ab ou t th e ris ks of tri al .”).

Hy le s’s as se rti on th at co un se l en co ur ag ed he r to reject th e pl ea is co nt rad ic te d 2 by th e reco rd

. Her tri al at to rn ey su bm it te d an affi da vi t swe ari ng he to ld Hy le s he r ch an ces were “ ex ceed in gl y sl im ” an d u rg in g h er t o a ccep t t he pl ea.

-7

-* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-