Court Opinion

ID: 9831306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:26.36221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:21.153997
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4580      Doc: 35         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4580

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARK ANTHONY CRUDUP, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00417-D-1)

        Submitted: August 23, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F.
        Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
        John L. Gibbons, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4580      Doc: 35         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Mark Anthony Crudup, Jr., pled guilty, without the benefit of a written plea

        agreement, to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924; possession with intent to distribute unspecified quantities of heroin,

        marijuana, and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and use of a firearm in

        furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). We

        previously affirmed Crudup’s convictions, see United States v. Crudup, No. 19-4569, 2021

        WL 4947145, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2021), but we remanded the matter for resentencing

        given a Rogers ∗ error in terms of the court’s announcement, at the 2019 sentencing, of the

        conditions of Crudup’s five-year term of supervised release. On remand for resentencing,

        the district court reimposed the same 192-month sentence.

               Crudup’s sole argument on appeal is that he received constitutionally ineffective

        assistance of counsel at the April 6, 2022, hearing at which the court considered Crudup’s

        pro se motion for the withdrawal of his then-attorney, Eliza Salmon, and heard witness

        testimony relevant to a then-pending objection to the computation of Crudup’s Sentencing

        Guidelines range. The Government counters that the record does not conclusively establish

        that Ms. Salmon was ineffective at this hearing and, therefore, that Crudup’s claim is not

        cognizable on direct appeal. Upon review, we agree with the Government’s position and

        affirm the amended criminal judgment.

               ∗
                United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that “all non-
        mandatory conditions of supervised release must be announced at a defendant’s sentencing
        hearing”).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4580       Doc: 35          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               There is no dispute that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to effective

        representation at all stages of the criminal process, including sentencing. See United States

        v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Generally, to succeed on an

        ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a “defendant must show that counsel’s performance

        was [constitutionally] deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the

        defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). An attorney’s performance

        is deficient if “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the

        ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Id. 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, “[t]he 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. A reasonable probability is a probability

        sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694.

               When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on appeal, we review the

        issue de novo, but “will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial record itself that

        the defendant was not provided effective representation.” Freeman, 24 F.4th at 326

        (emphasis and ellipses omitted). Thus, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is

        cognizable on direct appeal “only where the record conclusively establishes ineffective

        assistance.” United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4580       Doc: 35          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

               Crudup asserts that Ms. Salmon’s performance at the April 6 hearing was deficient

        in that she failed to object to the district court’s decision to take witness testimony prior to

        ruling on Crudup’s pro se motion for Ms. Salmon’s withdrawal and replacement with new

        counsel. We have reviewed the record and conclude that it does not conclusively establish

        that Crudup received ineffective assistance of counsel in this regard. See id. Therefore,

        this claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

               Accordingly, we affirm the amended 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

                                                       4