Court Opinion

ID: 9411078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 19:01:08.361939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:03.776196
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0343n.06

                                         Case No. 22-3994
                                                                                      FILED
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Jul 25, 2023
                                FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                          DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

                                                        )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        )
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )         ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                        )         UNITED STATES DISTRICT
v.                                                      )         COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
                                                        )         DISTRICT OF OHIO
JEFFERY J. GRANDBERRY,                                  )
                                                        )
       Defendant-Appellant.                             )                              OPINION

Before: BATCHELDER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

       COLE, Circuit Judge. On direct appeal, Jeffery Grandberry argues that his trial counsel

was constitutionally ineffective for multiple reasons. Because ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

claims are better left to post-conviction review, we decline to address the merits of Grandberry’s

claims and dismiss the appeal.

                                                  I.

       Grandberry was convicted by a jury of one count of being a felon in possession of

ammunition. Now, on direct appeal, Grandberry argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally

ineffective for (1) failing to advise Grandberry during the plea-bargaining phase of the possible

impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022); and

(2) failing to highlight certain inconsistencies in some of the trial testimony.

       We frequently decline to address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct

appeal because the existing record often lacks the information necessary to resolve the claims.
No. 22-3994, United States v. Grandberry

See United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459, 461–62 (6th Cir. 2005) (collecting cases); United

States v. Pryor, 842 F. App’x 1023, 1024 (6th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). “[I]n most cases a motion

brought under [28 U.S.C] § 2255 is preferable to direct appeal for deciding claims of ineffective

assistance” in order to allow for “additional factual development” regarding the “adequacy of

representation.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003).

       Here, the district court record is insufficient to decide Grandberry’s ineffective-assistance

claims. We have no information about the conversations between Grandberry and his counsel

during plea negotiations or any other phase of the case, nor does the current record reveal anything

about counsel’s strategy throughout the trial. His claims should “be litigated in the first instance

in the district court, the forum best suited to developing the facts necessary” to address the

ineffectiveness inquiry. Id. at 505.

       Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to Grandberry’s ability to raise his

ineffective-assistance claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

                                               -2-