[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12449

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20108-DMM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNSON THELISMA, 

a.k.a. Haitian Boy, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 19, 2014)

Before WILSON, KRAVITCH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 1 of 9 
2

Johnson Thelisma appeals his conviction and 360-month sentence for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and 

remand.

I.

In 2008, Thelisma was indicted for a drug conspiracy offense involving fifty 

grams or more of crack cocaine. Defense counsel negotiated a plea agreement in 

which Thelisma would plead guilty to a lesser amount of drugs, the sentence for 

which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a maximum term 

of forty years’ imprisonment. Thelisma rejected this deal. 

The government offered a second plea agreement in which Thelisma would 

plead to a conspiracy offense involving an indeterminate amount of crack, for 

which there was no mandatory minimum sentence and a statutory maximum of 

twenty years’ imprisonment. Although the parties dispute whether defense counsel 

advised Thelisma of this offer, what is undisputed is that prior to trial, defense 

counsel was unaware that Thelisma faced an enhanced statutory penalty up to life 

imprisonment if convicted of the charge alleged in the indictment. 

After defense counsel advised the government that Thelisma had rejected the 

second plea offer, the government filed a notice of its intent to seek enhanced 

penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 851, which subjected Thelisma to a mandatory term of 

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 2 of 9 
3

life imprisonment. Thelisma was convicted at trial and sentenced to a mandatory 

term of life imprisonment. This court affirmed his conviction and life sentence on 

direct appeal. United States v. Thelisma, 356 F. App’x 217 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(unpublished).

In 2011, Thelisma filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, 

alleging, relevant to the instant appeal, ineffective assistance of counsel after 

counsel (1) improperly informed him that he faced a statutory maximum term of 20 

years’ imprisonment rather than a mandatory life sentence if he proceeded to trial 

and lost, and (2) failed to present to him the government’s second proposed plea 

agreement that would have limited his sentencing exposure to a statutory 

maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment.

Following an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge recommended granting 

the § 2255 motion, concluding that Thelisma’s trial counsel had been ineffective 

by failing to advise Thelisma of the possible enhanced sentence and mandatory life 

imprisonment. Additionally, the magistrate judge concluded that counsel had 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to convey to Thelisma the second plea 

offer. Thus, the magistrate judge recommended that Thelisma “be resentenced 

upon his plea of guilty in a manner consistent with the second government plea 

offer.”

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 3 of 9 
4

The district court granted the § 2255 motion in part, agreeing that trial 

counsel had been ineffective for failing to advise Thelisma that he faced a 

mandatory life sentence if the government filed a § 851 notice and he was 

convicted. But the district court disagreed with the magistrate judge’s finding that 

the second plea offer was not otherwise properly conveyed to Thelisma. In so 

doing, the court did not conduct its own evidentiary hearing or take any additional 

testimony. The district court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to 

resentence Thelisma without the § 851 enhancement.

At Thelisma’s resentencing, Thelisma repeatedly requested that the court 

sentence him consistent with the terms of the second plea agreement, which would 

have given him a guideline range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment and a 

statutory maximum sentence of 240 months. The court rejected Thelisma’s 

calculations and determined the new guideline range to be 262 to 327 months’ 

imprisonment based on Thelisma’s status as a career offender. The court then 

explained that it was considering an upward variance due to Thelisma’s criminal 

history, and ultimately sentenced Thelisma to 360 months’ imprisonment. 

Thelisma now appeals.

II.

Thelisma argues that the district court erred by rejecting the magistrate 

judge’s credibility determination that Thelisma’s trial counsel failed to convey the 

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 4 of 9 
5

terms of the second plea agreement. He asserts that, under Lafler v. Cooper, 566 

U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012), the appropriate remedy for counsel’s failure to 

convey the second plea agreement was to require the government to re-offer the 

terms of the second plea agreement. Thus, according to Thelisma, his sentence 

exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months as contained in the second 

plea agreement.

Before we address the merits of Thelisma’s appeal, we must determine 

which issues are properly before us. Thelisma filed a notice of appeal in his 

criminal case indicating his intent to appeal “his amended final judgment of 

conviction and sentence entered on the docket May 30, 2013.” But he did not file 

a notice of appeal, or request a certificate of appealability (COA), in the 

companion § 2255 case, which carried a different case number. Nevertheless, we 

will construe the notice of appeal to include an appeal from the partial denial of the 

§ 2255 motion.1

 See, e.g., United States v. Futch, 518 F.3d 887, 894 (11th Cir. 

2008) (construing notice of appeal to include both resentencing and § 2255 claims 

because the resentencing constituted both the final judgment in the criminal case 

and the completion of the § 2255 proceeding).

 1

 We note that the government does not argue that we lack jurisdiction to consider the issues 

Thelisma raised in his § 2255 motion and instead responds to the merits of the arguments. 

Additionally, although the issues Thelisma raises on appeal relate to his ineffective-assistanceof-counsel claims in his § 2255 motion, we may consider a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel on direct appeal where, as here, the record is sufficiently developed. United States v. 

Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002).

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 5 of 9 
6

Because Thelisma did not request a COA from the district court, in 

accordance with Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1997),

we issued a limited remand instructing the district court to address a COA in the 

first instance. The district court has denied a COA, and we now consider whether 

Thelisma has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” to 

merit granting a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

We conclude that Thelisma has met his burden. The magistrate judge found 

that Thelisma was denied constitutionally effective counsel when his attorney 

failed to apprise him of the penalties he faced and to discuss the second plea 

proffer with him. The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s findings as to 

the first issue, but rejected them as to the second. This discrepancy shows that the 

issues are debatable, and Thelisma has thus made the necessary “substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

483-84 (2000).

III.

Turning to the merits, Thelisma argues that the district court erred when it 

rejected the magistrate judge’s credibility determinations and substituted its own 

without conducting an evidentiary hearing to hear the live testimony. 

We agree. Our precedent is clear: “the district judge should not enter an 

order inconsistent with the credibility choices made by the magistrate [judge] 

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 6 of 9 
7

without personally hearing the live testimony of the witnesses whose testimony is 

determinative.” Louis v. Blackburn, 630 F.2d 1105, 1109 (5th Cir. 1980) 

(discussing credibility issue in post-conviction case); see also United States v. 

Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256-57 (11th Cir. 2010) (discussing credibility issue in 

context of a motion to suppress). Both the testimony and the demeanor of the 

witnesses are important. Powell, 628 F.3d at 1256 n.6 (citing Louis, 630 F.2d at 

1109). 

At the § 2255 hearing, Thelisma testified that he was never shown the 

second plea offer and was never informed by counsel that he faced a mandatory 

life sentence. He stated that he would have pleaded guilty under the terms of the 

second plea offer had he known of it. 

Defense counsel Ana Davide admitted that she never reviewed the potential 

statutory maximum Thelisma faced and that she was “shocked” to learn he faced a 

mandatory life sentence. She further testified that her usual practice was to have 

her client write his rejection of a plea offer on the last page and sign it. Thelisma 

did so with the first plea offer, but the second plea contained no such notation. 

Davide testified that she met with Thelisma on either July 31 or August 1, 2008, to 

discuss the second plea and that he rejected it. She explained that there was no 

notation on the plea because, when she visited Thelisma to discuss it, Thelisma 

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 7 of 9 
8

was in lock-up and there was a wall preventing her from handing him the 

documents.

Based on this testimony, the magistrate judge found that “[a]fter careful 

consideration of the testimony of the movant in the context of this case and close 

observation of his demeanor at the evidentiary hearing, and taking into account the 

interests of those involved in the outcome of this proceeding, [I] find the movant’s 

testimony credible.” The magistrate judge found that the record evidence of email 

communications between defense counsel and the government supported 

Thelisma’s testimony. Although the magistrate judge found it “troubling” that 

there were inconsistencies between Thelisma and Davide’s testimonies with 

respect to the dates on which they met, and he credited Davide’s testimony on this 

issue, the magistrate judge found nothing in the record to conclude that Thelisma 

was advised of the second plea agreement. The magistrate judge specifically noted 

that Davide’s testimony was “very noncommittal and vague” as to what she and 

Thelisma discussed. Thus, the magistrate judge concluded that counsel was 

constitutionally deficient, and recommended that the court resentence Thelisma in 

accordance with the terms of the second plea agreement.

The district court conducted a de novo review and rejected the magistrate 

judge’s conclusions about the second plea agreement and the appropriate remedy. 

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 8 of 9 
9

In reaching this conclusion, the district court credited Davide’s testimony that she 

had conveyed the second plea agreement to Thelisma.

The district court’s actions are inconsistent with our precedent requiring 

district courts to make credibility determinations only after hearing the testimony 

live. Accordingly, because the district court in Thelisma’s case rejected the 

magistrate judge’s credibility determinations without rehearing the testimony live, 

we vacate and remand for further proceedings.2

VACATED and REMANDED.

 2

 Because we remand for further proceedings, we do not address the merits of Thelisma’s 

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims or his arguments that the court erred in the remedy it 

fashioned for counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Case: 13-12449 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 Page: 9 of 9