Opinion ID: 2620495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standby Counsel’s Failure to Appeal

Text: According to Mr. Jackson, Ms. Sanchez was ineffective because she failed to appeal. We disagree. Mr. Jackson admits that he did not ask Ms. Sanchez to file an appeal. But he claims that “she should have deduced that he wanted her to file an appeal when she received a copy of his pro se appeal.” R. at 552. It was her duty as counsel, he continues, “to check to see if [her] client want[ed] to appeal.” Id. For this claim, Mr. Jackson had to prove that Ms. Sanchez’s representation was deficient because of her failure to file an appeal. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91 (1984). And to prevail, Mr. Jackson had to demonstrate the deficiency by a preponderance of the evidence. Beeler v. Crouse, 332 F.2d 783, 783 (10th Cir. 1964) (per curiam). The district court concluded that 3 Mr. Jackson did not satisfy this burden, finding that Ms. Sanchez had no way of knowing that Mr. Jackson had wanted her to file an appeal. Mr. Jackson’s present arguments are meritless. In the habeas petition, Mr. Jackson alleged that he did not want Ms. Sanchez to continue speaking on his behalf. Habeas Pet. at 16. And, Ms. Sanchez was appointed as standby counsel over Mr. Jackson’s objection. The record could not have led any reasonable jurist to find that Ms. Sanchez would have known that Mr. Jackson wanted her to file an appeal. As a result, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability on this claim.