Opinion ID: 542287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ashley's Ineffective Assistance Claim

Text: 6 Appellant Ashley entered a pro se Petition for Writ of Error, followed by a motion, offered with assistance of counsel, to vacate his conviction and sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Ashley argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by, inter alia, failing to contact or subpoena witnesses whose testimony might have proven his innocence. In a supporting affidavit, Ashley alleged that he had informed his lawyer of two witnesses, Linda Pratt and his brother, Ian Ashley, who would have provided exculpatory testimony on his behalf. The district court summarily denied Ashley's motion without stating any findings of fact or conclusions of law. 7 Section 2255 requires a hearing before denial of a motion made pursuant to that provision [u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. After such a hearing, the court must determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the motion. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), sets out a two-part test for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. To succeed in his claim, Ashley must show (1) that his attorney's performance was objectively unreasonable and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694. Because the record was silent on what the potential witnesses might have offered in the way of exculpatory testimony, we could not determine conclusively that Ashley's ineffective assistance claim was without merit. For this reason we issued the interim order requiring the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this matter. 8 On remand, after the hearing, the district court found that appellant Ashley's court-appointed counsel, William Seals, contacted the proposed defense witnesses and that Seals exercised objectively professional judgment in declining to call the witnesses. According to the district court's findings, if called at trial Ian Ashley apparently would have testified that his brother was not living at the rooming house but was there at the time of the raid only to pick up his cousin's clothes. If called, Linda Pratt apparently would have testified that she was a friend of Ian and had met appellant Ashley at the rooming house on two or three occasions. We agree with the district court that Seals' proffered reasons for not calling these witnesses were objectively reasonable. 9 Alternatively, we affirm the district court's conclusion that Seals' failure to call the witnesses did not result in any prejudice to appellant Ashley. Appellant Ashley admitted during the remand hearing that the landlords testified at trial that he had been a tenant for nine months and that he told officer Nancy Brown that he lived in the rooming house. With the testimony of the landlords and Officer Brown, there is no reasonable probability that the testimony of Ian Ashley and Linda Pratt would have produced a different result at trial. 10 As to Ashley's other allegations of attorney error--failure to cross-examine witnesses at trial, to file motions to sever Ashley's case, to suppress illegally seized evidence, to preserve issues for appeal, or to present any defense at trial--we conclude that even if these alleged errors constituted deficient performance, the record clearly establishes that Ashley was not prejudiced by such errors. Again, we agree with the district court that there is no reasonable probability that the trial would have come out differently for Ashley but for the alleged errors, even if those alleged errors are framed as Ashley would have them framed. Ashley and his codefendants were all convicted of the same offenses, and the evidence was strongest against Ashley. He was a nine-month resident of the rooming house and was found hiding under a bed in a room with a large quantity of recently cooked crack in plain view and two loaded guns in and under the dresser.