Court Opinion

ID: 9382163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:34.227194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.374069
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4138      Doc: 31         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4138

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CHAETEZ SEAN CLAYTON, a/k/a Sticky,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00076-KDB-DSC-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony
        Joseph Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy
        Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4138      Doc: 31         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Chaetez Sean Clayton appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possession

        of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On

        appeal, Clayton’s sole argument is that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance

        of counsel because his trial attorney failed to call a witness Clayton asserts would have

        provided exculpatory testimony. The Government moves to dismiss Clayton’s appeal on

        the ground that the record does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective and

        therefore Clayton’s ineffective assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. Clayton

        opposes the Government’s motion. For the following reasons, we deny the Government’s

        motion to dismiss but affirm the criminal judgment.

               To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a “defendant must show

        that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced

        the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We “must indulge a

        strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable

        professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under

        the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. at

        689 (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish prejudice, the defendant must show

        “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.

               We will not consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal unless the record

        conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. United States v. Campbell, 963 F.3d 309,

        319 (4th Cir. 2020). Generally, a defendant should raise ineffectiveness claims in a 28

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4138         Doc: 31      Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion, to permit sufficient development of the record. See Massaro v.

        United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-06 (2003).

               Clayton argues that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness is apparent on the record because

        Clayton referred to an exculpatory witness during his sentencing hearing. However,

        Clayton’s own statements at sentencing are insufficient to conclusively establish that trial

        counsel’s performance was deficient. Moreover, even if Clayton’s statement that the

        witness would have provided exculpatory evidence is accepted at face value, Clayton has

        not shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been

        different. Because we conclude that the record does not conclusively establish Clayton’s

        claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, this claim is not cognizable on

        direct appeal.

               Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss but affirm the criminal

        judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                      3