FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 31 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 09 -cv -2 37 77 -MGC ; 1: 04 -cr- 20 48 7- MGC-3 ANTHONYCOLLINS,

Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 10, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ant ho ny Col li ns , a fed eral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t

co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t h is sen te nc e, pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. In hi s m ot io n, Co ll in s as se rte d n um ero us cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, i nc lu di ng th athi s tria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to (1) co nv ey

to th e d is tri ctco urt h is m id -tr ia l d es ire to pl eadgu il ty to two of the th ree c ou nt s i n t he in di ctm en t, wh ic h wo ul d h av e en ti tl edhi m to a two -le ve l g ui de li ne reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y ; (2 ) m ov e th e di st ric t co urt t o d is m is s the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t b as edup on a vi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy Trial Act an d t he go ve rn m en t’s b adfai th inob ta in in g t he supe rs ed in g in di ctm en t; an d (3 ) in ve st ig at e h is m en ta l h eal th an d ra is e anin sa ni ty defen se at tri al . On ap pe al , Col li ns ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s re jecti on of e ach of t he se cl ai m s o n t he m eri ts , andad di ti on al ly con te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is fir stcla im

forrel ie f wit ho utho ld in g a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng be cau se a factua l d is pu te ex is te d a s t o wh ethe r he co nv ey edhi s d es ire to pl eadgu il ty to tria l co un se l. W e rev ie w cla im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l de no vo . Ch an dl er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 21 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ). W e m ay affi rm on an y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d, ev enif n otrel ie d upo n b y th e d is tri ctco urt. 2Tr ot te r v. Sec’y, Dep’ t o f Co rr . , 53 5 F .3d12 86 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o c ou ns el gu aran te es th e ri gh t t o t he effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Stri cklan d v . W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 6, 1 04 S.Ct . 20 52 , 20 63 -6 4, 8 0 L.Ed .2d67 4 (1 98 4) . In o rd er t o s uc ceedon a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, a m ov an t m us t s ho w bo th th at(1) co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fe ll be lo w an o bjec ti ve st an da rdof r eas on ab le ne ss , and(2) a reas on ab le pro babi li ty exi st s tha t the res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t b utforco un se l’s d efi ci en cy . Ch an dl er , 21 8 F .3dat 1 31 2- 13 . Co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce i s m eas ur edun de r pr ev ai li ng pro fes si on al no rm s, an d t he bu rd enfal ls on th e m ov an t t o p ro ve th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was un reas on ab le . Id . at 1 31 3. We pres um e th atco un se l’s p erfo rm an ce was reas on ab le , anda m ov an t o nl y reb ut s thi s p res um

pt io n b y de m on st rat in g t ha t n o co m pe te ntco un se l wo ul d h av e en ga ge d i n t he co ur se of c on du ctth atco un se l t oo k. Id . at 1 31 4- 15 . W it h re sp ectto th e p reju di ce p ro ng , a reas on ab le pro babi li ty is a pr ob ab il it y

su ffi ci en t t o u nd erm in e co nf id en ce i n t he ou tc om e. Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at 6 94 , 10 4 S .Ct. at20 68 . W e d o n othave to ad dr es s co un se l’s p erfo rm an ce if t he m ov an t ca nn otde m on strat e su ffi ci en t p reju di ce. Stri cklan d , 46 6 U.S. at 69 7, 1 04 S.Ct . at 2 06 9.

3I. Gu il ty Plea

Whe n c al cu la ti ng th e ap pl ic ab le ran ge un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , a de fen da ntm ay

rece iv e a two- le ve l re du ct io n i n h is off en se lev el if h e cl earl y de m on st rat es acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y forhi s o ffen se , altho ug h s uc h a reduc ti on is no t a m at te r of rig htfora de fen da ntwho pl ead s g ui lt y . U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 (a) (2 00 5) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Wad e , 45 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The de fen da ntcarr ie s the bu rd enof c le arl y de m on st rat in g h is acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , andm

us t p res en t m or e th anjus t a g ui lt y pl ea. W ade , 45 8 F .3dat 12 79 . A gu il ty ple a p rio r to tri al , inco m bi na ti onwith t he tru th fu l ad m is si onof t he of fen se co nduc t, i s s ig ni fic an t ev id en ce o f acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . Id . In co ns id eri ng whet he r a d efen da ntqu al ifi es for a reduc ti on foracce pt in g res po ns ib il it y , th e d is tri ctco urt m ay co ns id er the ti m el in es s o f th e d efen da nt ’s m an ife st at io n o f acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1, co m m en t. (n .1(h ), n.6 ) (2 00 5) . Sect io n 3 E1.1 is no t i nt en de d t o app ly to a d efen da ntwho pu ts th e go ve rn m en t t o i ts bu rd enof p ro of at t ria l b y

de nyin g t he ess en ti al factua l el em en ts of gu il t, i s co nv ic te d, an d t he n l at er ad mit s g ui ltan d e xp res se s re m or se . U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , comm en t. (n .2) ( 20 05 ). A con vi ct io n a t tria l, h owe ve r, do es no t au to m at ic al ly precl ud e anoff en se lev el reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y .

4Id . In ra re s itua ti on s, s uc h a s wh ere ade fen da ntgo es to tri al to ass ertis su es

un rel at edto hi s fa ctua l g ui lt , a de fen da ntm ay cle arl y de m on st rat e anacce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

forhi s o ffen se alt ho ug h h e wen t t o t ria l. Id . In s uc h a n i ns ta nc e, ho wev er, the de te rm in at io n wi ll be ba se d p rimaril y up on th e d efen da nt ’s pre -tr ia l st at em en ts an d c on du ct . Id . Co ll in s d idno t s ho w th athe was p reju di cedby cou ns el ’s all eg edfai lu re t o in fo rm th e d is tri ctco urt o f hi s m id -tr ia l d es ire to pl eadgu il ty. Co ll in s m ai nt ai ne d th athe form

ul at edhi s d es ire to pl eadgu il ty after the tri al be ga n, an d o nl y di d s o be cau se he saw t he weig htof t he go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im . Acco rd in gl y , Col li ns di d n otde m on st rat e a rea so nabl e p ro babi li ty tha t h e wou ld ha ve rece iv eda two -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ti ng res po ns ib il it y ab se nttri al co un se l’s al le ge dl y

de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce. II . Evi dent ia ry Hea ri ng W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Aro n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 29 1 F .3d70 8, 7 14 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). An ev id en ti ary he ari ng is requi redun le ss th e m ot io n, fi le s, an d re co rd s o f th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sho w th atth e m ov an t i s n oten ti tl edto an y rel ie f. Id . at 7 14 . If th e m ov an t al le ge s fa ct s tha t, i f true , wou lden ti tl e h im to rel ie f, th enth e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldord er an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Id . at 7 14 -1 5. 5Bec au se Co ll in s’s m ot io n, i f ta ke n a s tru e, an d t he reco rdco nc lu si ve ly

es tabl is he d t ha t h e d idno t s uf fer a ny preju di ce b y

tri al co un se l’s al le ge d fa il ur e to in fo rm th e d is tri ctco urt o f hi s d es ire to pl eadgu il ty, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g t hi s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m witho utanev id en ti ary he ari ng .

II I. Spe edy Tri al Act a nd Go ve rnmenta l Ba d Fai th Und er the Sp eedy

Trial Act, an in di ctm en t m us t b e fi le d wi th in 30 da y s fro m th e d at e o f anin di vi du al ’s arres t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 61 (b ) (2 00 4) . A supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t tha t i ss ue s m or e th an30 da y s af te r th e arr es t, b utbe fo re th e o rig in al in di ctm en t i s d is mis se d, d oe s n otvi ol at e § 31 61 (b ). Uni te d Sta tes v. Mos qu era , 95 F.3d10 12 , 10 13 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). The Sp eedy

Trial Act al so requi res th atth e tr ia l o f a d efen da ntco m m en ce withi n 7 0 d ay s fr om

th e la te r of

th e fi li ng da te of the in di ctm en t, o r th e d at e th e de fen da ntap pe aredbe fo re a ju di ci al off ic er o f th e ap pr op ria te co urt. 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 61 (c)( 1) (20 04 ). A jury tri al co m m en ces , forpu rp os es of t he Sp eedy Trial Act, wh enth e d is tri ctco urt b eg in s vo ir di re . Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 67 1 F .2d 44 1, 4 43 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). The fi li ng of asupe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t d oe s n otres et th e Sp eedy

Trial Act cl oc k fo r ch arg es th atwere i nc lu de d i n t he ori gi na l in di ctm en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Y ou ng , 52 8 F .3d12 94 , 12 95 -9 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) .

6Cert ai n p eri od s o f ti m e, ho wev er, are ex cl ud edfro m th e cal cu la ti on of t he 70 -d ay pe rio d. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (20 04 ). Any de lay res ul ti ng fro m

a pr etria l m ot io n i s ex cl ud ed , andth is pe rio d ru ns “ fro m th e fi li ng of the m ot io n th ro ug h t he co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng on , or o th er p ro m ptdi sp os it io n o f, su ch m ot io n.” Id . § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(F) (20 04 ). W it h re sp ectto a m ot io n fo r whi cha he ari ng is requi red , th e en ti re p eri odfro m th e fi li ng of t he m ot io n t o t he he ari ng on th atm ot io n i s ex cl ud edwitho utrefer en ce t o wh ethe r th atti m e p eri odwas un reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Da ven po rt , 93 5 F .2d12 23 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). If, aft er the he ari ng , th e co urt h as all of t he m at eri al s n eces sa ry to rul e o n t he m ot io n, i t h as th e m ot io n u nd er ad vi se m en t i m m ed ia te ly foll owi ng th e h eari ng . Id . From th atda te , any del ay reas on ab ly attr ib ut ab le to th e p eri oddu rin g wh ic h th e m ot io n i s u nd er advi se m en t b y th e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h c an no t ex ceed30 da y s, is ex cl ud ab le . 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(J ) (2 00 4) ; Dav en po rt , 93 5 F .2dat 1 22 8. A de la y res ul ti ng fro m

a co de fen da nt ’s m ot io n i s ex cl ud ab le as t o e ach co de fen da nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. Tw it ty , 10 7 F .3d14 82 , 14 88 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Lik ewis e, any

pe rio d o f de la y

th atres ul ts fro m

a co nt in ua nc e g ran te d b y th e di st ric t co urt i s ex cl ud ab le if t he di st ric t co urt g ran ts th e co nt in ua nc e o n t he ba si s of a fi nd in g tha t “ th e en ds of ju st ic e se rv edby tak in g s uc h a ct io n o ut weig h t he be stin te res t o f th e p ub li c an d t he de fen da ntina sp eedy tri al .” 18 U.S.C. 7§ 3 16 1( h) (8 ) (2 00 4) . This ti m e p eri od , ho wev er, i s o nl y ex cl ud ab le if t he di st ric t co urt s et s fo rth inth e rec or d, wh ethe r or al ly or in writ in g, i ts reas on s fo r fi nd in g th atth e en ds of ju st ic e se rv edby gran ti ng th e co nt in ua nc e o ut weig h t he be st in te res ts of t he publ ic an d t he de fen dantina sp eedy tri al . Id . Uns ub st an ti at edan d c on cl us ory all eg at io ns are i ns uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns th atwil l s up po rt g ran ti ng a m ot io n t o v acat e. Uni te d St at es v. Jo nes , 61 4 F .2d80 , 81 -8 2 (5 th Cir . 19 80 ). 1 The di stric t co urt erredby con cl ud in g t ha t the fil in g o f th e supe rs ed in g in di ctm en t re se t the Sp eedy Trial Act cl oc k. No ne th el es s, Co ll in s d idno t es tabl is h t ha t tria l co un se l’s fa il ur e to m ov e to di sm is s the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t ba se d upo n a n a ll eg edvi ol at io n o f th e Sp eedy Trial Act was de fic ie ntor pr ejud ic ia l. Whenon e co m pu te s t he da y s ex cl ud ab le du e to Green ’s m ot io ns , th e pe rio d t he di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth os e m ot io ns , andth e d is tri ctco urt’s co nt in ua nc e, fewerth ansev en ty day s el ap se d. Mo reo ve r, co un se l ad op te d aco de fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s the supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t b as edup on th e g ov ern m en t’s b adfai th , andth e d is tri ct

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981)(en ba nc), this 1 Court adopted as bindingprec edent a ll of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 8co urt u lt im at el y de ni edth atm ot io n o n t he m eri ts . Col li ns ’s att orne y , th eref or e, di d n otren de r de fic ie ntpe rfo rm an ce i n t hi s re ga rd . In an y ev en t, Co ll in s’s un subs ta nt ia te d a ndco nc lu so ry st at em en ts th atth e g ov ern m en t o bt ai ne d t he supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t i n b adfai th were i ns uf fic ie ntto supp ort a s ho win g o f pr ejud ic e. IV. I ns an ity Defens e It i s an affi rm at iv e d efen se th at , at the ti m e o f th e o ffen se , th e d efen da ntwas un ab le to ap pr eci at e th e n atur e an d qua li ty or th e wro ng fu ln es s o f hi s ac ts as a res ul t o f a s ev ere m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect . 18 U.S.C. § 1 7( a). A m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectalo ne is no t a d efen se . Id . The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g a n in sa ni ty defen se by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Id . § 1 7( b) . Co ll in s d idno t s ho w th athe was p reju di cedby tria l co un se l’s al le ge d fai lu re t o i nv es ti ga te hi s m en ta l h eal th an d ra is e anin sa ni ty defen se . Neithe r th e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt c on cern in g h is ps y ch ol og ic al hi st ory , no r th e ev id en ce o f hi s o ffen se co nduc t, t en de d t o e st ab li sh th athe was i ns an e atth e ti m e o f hi s o ffen se s, an d C ol li ns ’s bar e an d un subs ta nt ia te d a ss ert io ns th ata reas on ab le pro babi li ty exi st edth ata jury w ou ld ha ve fou ndhi m

in sa ne ha d t ria l co un se l co nduc te d an i nv es ti ga ti on were in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is m ot io n t o v acat e. 9Afte r car efu l re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f Co ll in s’s m ot io n t o v acat e. AFFIRMED.

10