Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/bethea-v-united-states-694235085
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:29:21+00:00

Document:
Party Name: Venlonte V. Bethea, Appellant, v. United States, Appellee.
Attorney: Richard S. Stolker was on the brief for appellant. Channing D. Phillips, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, and Michael E. McGovern, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
Channing D. Phillips, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, Elizabeth Trosman, Chrisellen R. Kolb, and Michael E. McGovern, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
Before Glickman, Thompson, and Easterly, Associate Judges.
Appellant Venlonte V. Bethea appeals the Superior Court's order denying his motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 (2001)-alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) at trial-without a hearing. Because we conclude that our well established presumption in favor of holding a hearing on all § 23-110 motions has not been rebutted, we reverse and remand for a hearing on his IAC claim.
Hardy v. United States, 988 A.2d 950, 961 (D.C. 2010)). The trial court placed this case into the third category, determining that "defendant's claim would warrant no relief even if it were true."
We review a trial court's decision to deny a § 23-110 petition without hearing for abuse of discretion. Lane v. United States, 737 A.2d 541, 548 (D.C. 1999); see also Bellinger v. United States, 127 A.3d 505, 514-15 (D.C. 2015) ("While the decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a § 23-110 collateral challenge to the constitutionality of a conviction is committed to the trial court's discretion, the extent of that discretion is quite narrow." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although the trial court identified a legitimate ground for denying a § 23-110 petitioner a hearing-namely, that appellant's claim would warrant no relief even if it were true-we conclude that the trial court here abused its discretion by denying the petition summarily.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 § 23
 § 23
 v. 
 § 23
 v. 
 v. 
 § 23
 § 23