Court Opinion

ID: 9895557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 19:00:31.445161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:35.711587
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13254    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13254
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       WILLIS MAXI,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-24209-DLG
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13254         Document: 23-1          Date Filed: 11/07/2023          Page: 2 of 7

       2                          Opinion of the Court                         22-13254

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Willis Maxi, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s de-
       nial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He asserts that he was denied
       a full and fair suppression hearing when his prior attorney failed to
       call him to the stand to establish that he had not voluntarily con-
       sented to police entering the stash house where he was arrested. 1
       He also argues that he was entitled to a post-conviction evidentiary
       hearing because his assertions were not patently frivolous, affirm-
       atively contradicted by the record, or impermissibly generalized.
       After careful consideration, we affirm the district court’s denial.
                                               I
              The issues presented in this appeal stem from the search of
       a Florida residence at which Maxi was present. Police received a
       tip that the residence was being used as a “stash house.” Officers
       approached the house and knocked. The officers contend that no
       one announced “police.” Maxi, who was in the house at the time,
       immediately opened the door. The officers questioned Maxi, who

       1 Maxi also complains that his counsel failed to include the allegations from his

       affidavit in his motion to suppress. But because this Court’s certificate of ap-
       pealability covers only the question whether Maxi’s counsel was deficient for
       failing to elicit testimony from him at the suppression hearing, we do not ad-
       dress the affidavit issue. See Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289, 1290–91 (11th
       Cir. 2009).
USCA11 Case: 22-13254     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023    Page: 3 of 7

       22-13254              Opinion of the Court                        3

       stated he did not live at the residence. Later, a search warrant was
       obtained and evidence seized from the house. Maxi was taken into
       custody and informed of his Miranda rights. He then confessed to
       working for the drug-trafficking organization as a “cut man.” Ulti-
       mately, a jury convicted Maxi of four counts of drug-trafficking and
       firearms offenses, and the district court sentenced him to a total
       term of 312 months’ imprisonment.
               Before trial, Maxi moved to suppress physical evidence
       seized following a warrantless entry into the residence on the
       ground that the police lacked probable cause or exigent circum-
       stances. The denial of that motion is the basis of the § 2255 motion
       at issue here. Maxi filed a pro se motion to vacate his 312-month
       sentence, arguing that his prior counsel was ineffective for failing
       to elicit testimony from him that he did not voluntarily consent to
       law enforcement’s entry into the stash house where he was ar-
       rested.
              At the hearing, Maxi’s counsel cross-examined the govern-
       ment’s witnesses and called four officers as witnesses. Maxi testi-
       fied on his own behalf. His testimony centered around his associ-
       ation with the stash house and the scope of his access to the house.
       Based on testimony from the other witnesses showing the number
       of officers present at the scene and that their guns were drawn,
       Maxi’s lawyer argued that Maxi’s consent was not voluntary. The
       magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the mo-
       tion be denied, finding that Maxi opened the door to the stash
       house voluntarily and not under a show of police authority.
USCA11 Case: 22-13254       Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 11/07/2023       Page: 4 of 7

       4                        Opinion of the Court                    22-13254

              In the district court, Maxi argued that his counsel was inef-
       fective because counsel failed to question Maxi during the suppres-
       sion hearing about his observations at the time of the arrest and
       search. In support of his argument, Maxi presented an affidavit
       stating that sometime “prior to trial” he gave information to his
       lawyer about the encounter with police at the stash house that
       should have been presented in the hearing.2
              The government responded that Maxi’s prior counsel’s fail-
       ure to call him to testify did not rise to the level of constitutionally
       ineffective assistance of counsel because his would-be testimony
       was not persuasive and in fact could have been harmful to him.
       The government argued that Maxi’s testimony would be tempered
       by self-interest and that two witnesses contradicted his version of
       events. Therefore, the government argued, it was reasonable for
       Maxi’s counsel to conclude that the testimony was not helpful.
               The district court issued an order denying Maxi’s § 2255 mo-
       tion, stating that he was not entitled to relief because he could not
       show that any deficiency in his lawyer’s performance prejudiced
       him. And the district court denied Maxi’s request for an evidentiary
       hearing on the ground that he did not demonstrate that he was en-
       titled to one. The district court declined to issue a certificate of
       appealability. Maxi filed a motion for reconsideration, which the

       2 For example, Maxi claims he told counsel that he “heard a loud pounding at

       the door,” and that when he looked through the peephole, he saw “several
       officers” with “guns drawn” and heard “about 10 police” screaming “This is
       the police! Open the door so we can talk to you.”
USCA11 Case: 22-13254      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 11/07/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-13254                Opinion of the Court                          5

       district court also denied. Maxi appealed, and a member of this
       Court granted him a certificate of appealability on the issue before
       us now.
                                          II
              In a proceeding on a § 2255 motion, we review the district
       court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal issues de novo.
       Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We re-
       view a district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255
       motion for an abuse of discretion. Winthrop-Redin v. United States,
       767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014). “A district court abuses its
       discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in
       an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper proce-
       dures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are
       clearly erroneous.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
              To show ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant
       must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the
       deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Deficient perfor-
       mance occurs when counsel’s representation falls below an objec-
       tive standard of reasonableness, and a defendant is prejudiced
       when there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s un-
       professional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
       different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694 (1984).
       A court reviewing an ineffective-assistance claim need not address
       both components of the inquiry if the defendant fails to show one
       of them. Id. at 697. A petitioner cannot establish an ineffective-
       assistance claim by merely pointing to additional evidence that
USCA11 Case: 22-13254      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 11/07/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13254

       could have been presented. Rhode v. Hall, 582 F.3d 1273, 1284 (11th
       Cir. 2009). And generally, a determination about which witnesses,
       if any, to call, and when to call them, is the epitome of a strategic
       decision, and it is one that we will seldom, if ever, second guess.
       See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690–91 (“[S]trategic choices made after
       thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible op-
       tions are virtually unchallengeable . . . .”); Sanchez v. United States,
       782 F.2d 928, 935 (11th Cir. 1986) (“When a lawyer makes an in-
       formed choice between alternatives, his tactical judgment will al-
       most never be overturned on habeas corpus.”). A petitioner is en-
       titled to an evidentiary hearing if he alleges reasonably specific,
       non-conclusory facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief. Win-
       throp-Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216. “However, a district court need not
       hold a hearing if the allegations are patently frivolous, based upon
       unsupported generalizations, or affirmatively contradicted by the
       record.” Id. (quotation marks omitted)
               Here, the district court did not err in finding that Maxi failed
       to establish that his prior counsel was ineffective. Maxi argues that
       his counsel should have elicited more testimony from him—but
       Maxi cannot establish an ineffective-assistance claim merely by
       pointing to additional evidence that could have been presented.
       Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284. And counsel’s strategic decision about
       whether to question Maxi about his observations during the police
       search was within the range of reasonable strategic decisions. Maxi
       failed to establish that his lawyer’s decision not to have him testify
       fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, given that his
       testimony would have been contradicted by two other witnesses.
USCA11 Case: 22-13254     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 11/07/2023    Page: 7 of 7

       22-13254              Opinion of the Court                        7

       See Rhode, 582 F.3d at 1284; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88. Moreo-
       ver, Maxi failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s
       decision, given that his lawyer had already argued that Maxi was
       afraid and intimidated by police into opening the door, which is the
       same thing to which Maxi would have testified. The magistrate
       judge rejected this argument, and Maxi has not shown how his tes-
       timony would have changed the judge’s view of the case.
              Maxi’s separate argument that he was entitled to an eviden-
       tiary hearing fails because the testimony he sought to introduce
       was affirmatively contradicted by two witnesses. See Win-
       throp-Redin, 767 F.3d at 1216.
             AFFIRMED.