2003 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
7-18-2003 

# U S A v . B l ak el y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2783

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . B l ake ly " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 357. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/357* Sitting b y design ation: C ynthia H . Hall, C ircuit Jud ge, U .S.C.A ., Ninth Circu it. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2783
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. SHAUNTE BLAKEL Y, Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 01-CR-00518) Distri ct Court J udge: JoelA. Pisano
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 16, 2003 Bef ore: AL ITO , ROTH, HALL, * Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: J uly 18, 2003)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT-2-

PE R C URI AM: In thi s dire ct cri minal appeal , Shaunte Blakely , argues that he was deprived of t he effecti ve assi stance of

counsel i n proceedi ngs before t he District Court . As a general
cou rse, w e do not rev iew suc h cla ims on d irect app eal. United States v. Hay wood , 155 F.3d 674 , 678 ( 3d C ir. 1998 ). On occa sion, ex ceptio n is m ade w here “ the rec ord is suffici ent to a llow a det ermination of ine ffecti ve assi stance of counsel. ” United States v. Headley , 923 F.2d 1079, 10 83 (3d C ir. 1991). In order to show ineffec tive a ssis tance of couns el, a defendant must sati sfy the two-part standar d enunciat ed in Stri ckland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 ( 1984). Fi rst, the defendant must

show that, considering the f acts of t he case, his counse l’s c halle nged actio ns w ere u nre aso nab le, id . at 690, and, theref

ore, di d not fal l “withi n the rangeof competence demanded of attorney s in criminalcases. ” Hill v. Lock hart , 474 U.S. 52, 56- 57 (1985) (quot

ing McM ann v. Richardson , 3 97 U .S . 7 59, 771 (1 970 )) . We re vi ew a defe ndan t’s claim und er the “ strong presu mp tion tha t the co unse l’s con duct f alls w ithin the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption t hat, under the c ircumst ances, t he chall enged acti on ‘might be considered sound trial s trategy. ’” Stri ckland , 466 U.S. at 688. Second, the defendant must show that he wa s preju diced by coun sel’s co ndu ct in tha t there is a “reaso nable probabil ity ” that

defici ent ass ist ance of counselaffected t he outcome of the proceedi ng at issu e. Id . at

694-95.The rec ord now before u s is not sufficiently develop ed to review Blakely’s

ineffective ass ist ance of counselclai m at thi s ti me. Firs t, t he record i s inadequate for the purpose of determining whether counsel ’s actions were r easonable . Neither counselnor the defendant

have test

ifie d under oath c oncerning t he reasons for the c ounsel’ s decis ion to forego an eviden tiary hearing on the sub stance-identification issue . Second , the record is i nsuffici ent for t

he purpose of determining whether counsel ’s conduct prejudi ced the outco me o f the se ntenc ing p rocee ding . Go vern men t witne sses, inc luding a D EA chem ist, were present

at the defendant’ s sente ncing hearing and were pre pared to testi fy as to the nature of the substance at issue; how ever, as defe nse cou nsel revok ed his client’s objection to t

he substance-ide ntifi cati on issue be fore the se witnes ses were pre sented, the record does not d ocum ent the conte nt of th eir inten ded te stimo ny. With out a f ully developed r ecord as t o the nature of the government witnesses’ intende d testimony and
accom panying evide nce, we canno t evaluate the de fendan t’s claim that his coun sel’s conduct prejudiced the outcome of the District Court proceedings. We affirm the Dist

rict Court’s j udgment of sent ence, wit hout prej udice t o the rais ing of thi s ineffec tivene ss claim in a moti on pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, as t he record i s insuff

icie nt to fi t the c laim within the narrow excepti on to the ge neral r ule of Haywood , 155 F.3d at

678, as enunci ated i n Headley , 923 F.2d at 1083, that a cl aim of ineffective ass ist ance is properlyrais ed in a col late ral pr oceeding.