Opinion ID: 2977316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instruction to Appeal

Text: Richards fails to show that he requested an appeal. “[A] lawyer who disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Id. at 477 (citation omitted). In these instances, the filing is a “ministerial task,” not a strategic choice, and therefore “the failure to file reflects inattention to the defendant’s wishes.” Id. That is not the case here. The district court’s finding that Richards did not tell Johnson to appeal in a timely fashion is not clearly erroneous. Richards first claimed that he told Johnson to file the appeal immediately after sentencing, and later admitted that this statement was false and that he did not discuss the appeal with his attorney until he called Johnson from the federal detention center. Richards’s father stated that he requested the appeal as well. Johnson, however, was adamant that no such -5- No. 05-2135 Richards v. United States conversation took place and noted that he did not even handle appeals. The district court found Johnson’s testimony more credible and that the circumstances indicated that Richards did not want to appeal until well after the ten-day appeal period. Although the district court based much of its decision on whether there was a legal basis for an appeal, given the alternative views of the evidence, the district court’s finding that Richards did not request an appeal is not clearly erroneous.