Opinion ID: 2675921
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pericles’s Criminal History

Text: Pericles claims that his attorney was ineffective by not requesting “a full, complete and legible record of [Pericles’s] prior convictions to be produced by the government.” Pericles asserts that obtaining his criminal record would have allowed his attorney to adequately advise him “concerning the election of trial.” 4 In a § 2255 proceeding, this Court reviews legal issues de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 motion. Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 714 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002). A district court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing “where the petitioner’s allegations are affirmatively contradicted by the record, or the claims are patently frivolous.” Id. at 715. 9 Case: 12-14505 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 10 of 15 Pericles has not shown his attorney performed unreasonably. In addition, Pericles does not even allege that he did not know his own criminal history. Had Pericles wished for his attorney to evaluate what effect his convictions might have on any sentence he would receive, he could have simply told his attorney about his personal criminal history. He did not need for his attorney to go searching for information that he himself possessed. Alternatively, Pericles cannot show prejudice on this claim. To establish prejudice based on ineffective assistance in deciding whether to plead guilty or go to trial, a defendant “‘must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would . . . have pleaded guilty and would [not] have insisted on going to trial.’” Coulter v. Herring, 60 F.3d 1499, 1504 (11th Cir. 1995) (alterations in original) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370 (1985)). A defendant’s “after the fact testimony concerning his desire to plead, without more, is insufficient to establish” prejudice. Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832, 835 (11th Cir. 1991). Even assuming his attorney did not review his criminal history, and this constituted unreasonable performance, Pericles has not shown prejudice. As the magistrate judge noted, “Pericles has maintained his innocence throughout the underlying criminal proceedings” and “even submitted to a polygraph examination after trial to show he was innocent.” In light of Pericles’s insistence that he is 10 Case: 12-14505 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 11 of 15 innocent of the offense, there is no reasonable probability that he would have pled guilty if, before Pericles pled, his attorney had reviewed his criminal history. See Osley v. United States, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 1399419, at  (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2014) (defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on attorney’s failure to advise him that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence could not show prejudice in part because his “claim that he would have pled guilty had he been properly informed [was] . . . undermined by his repeated claims of innocence”). On appeal, Pericles contends that, had his attorney investigated Pericles’s criminal history, Pericles “would have pleaded guilty and not gone to trial—even if he was innocent.” To the extent that Pericles contends he would have sought to enter an Alford plea of guilty while maintaining his innocence,5 that argument does not establish prejudice for two reasons. First, Pericles cannot establish that the district court would have accepted an Alford plea in his case. See United States v. Gomez-Gomez, 822 F.2d 1008, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987) (“Though a judge may enter judgment upon a guilty plea offered under [Alford], he is not required to do so.”). Second, Pericles’s assertion that he would have entered an Alford plea is merely an unsupported “after the fact” statement, insufficient to establish prejudice. See Diaz, 930 F.2d at 835.