Opinion ID: 2329108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Grounds

Text: The trial court denied appellant's motion as procedurally barred on two related but separate grounds. First, the court held that the motion was barred because it was a successive motion for similar relief under D.C.Code § 23-110(e). Second, the court held that the only new issue raised in his second § 23-110 motion, the question of his competency to enter the plea, was barred for failure to raise it in his first § 23-110 motion. D.C.Code § 23-110(e) states, The court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. We have often and consistently upheld the denial of a second or successive § 23-110 motion without a hearing, at least in the absence of a showing of cause and prejudice, which appellant has not made. See, e.g., Washington v. United States, 834 A.2d 899, 902-904 (D.C.2003) (citing cases); Dobson v. United States, 815 A.2d 748, 758 (D.C.2003); [3] Matos v. United States, 631 A.2d 28, 31 (D.C.1993); Vaughn v. United States, 600 A.2d 96, 97 (D.C.1991). A motion is successive if it raises claims identical to those raised and denied on the merits in a prior motion. Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 444 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. 2616, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1986); see Vaughn, 600 A.2d at 97. Appellant's present allegations that he was not competent to enter a guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing are, we conclude, successive to those made in his first § 23-110 motion. That motion was denied on the merits, and the denial was affirmed by this court on appeal. This means that all the claims he raised in his first motion, including ineffective assistance of counsel, cannot be raised again in a second (or third or fourth) motion. It is true that in his first motion appellant did not specifically urge, as a ground for relief, counsel's failure to request a competency hearing at the time of the guilty plea. But the fact that his second claim of ineffective assistance is based on acts or omissions by counsel that were not alleged in the first motion does not affect our conclusion that the second motion is successive, as that term is used in the statute. Only the factual allegations in the second motion are new; the legal claim in the second, ineffective assistance, is the same as in the first. Because the second motion stated an identical legal basis for relief  ineffective assistance of trial counsel  and because [appellant] demonstrates no cause for and prejudice from his failure to raise this ineffective assistance claim in his first 23-110 motion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second motion without a hearing. Dobson, 815 A.2d at 758 (emphasis added; citation omitted). [4] Without a showing of cause and prejudice, appellant is entitled to no more than one bite at the ineffective assistance apple. Appellant, like any other convicted defendant, cannot keep presenting new claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, basing each new claim on different acts or omissions by counsel that were not mentioned in a previous motion. Moreover, any claims that were not previously made are procedurally barred under the abuse of writ doctrine. See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 490, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991); Washington, 834 A.2d at 902-903; Matos, 631 A.2d at 30. To establish sufficient cause for failing to assert his current claims in his previous motion, appellant must show that he was prevented by exceptional circumstances from doing so. Head v. United States, 489 A.2d 450, 451 (D.C.1985); see Washington, 834 A.2d at 903. He has utterly failed to make such a showing. In his first § 23-110 motion, appellant did not challenge the trial court's failure to hold a competency hearing, nor did he contend that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request such a hearing. In his second § 23-110 motion, he offered no excuse for his failure to include such claims in his first motion, nor does he do so in his brief on appeal. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court committed no error in ruling that they were procedurally barred. [5]