Court Opinion

ID: 2964990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:51.155433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:03.660964
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1524

                           CARLOS ALBERTO BERRIO-CALLEJAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Carlos Alberto Berrio-Callejas on brief pro se.
            ______________________________
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney,  Jose A.  Quiles-Espinosa,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Senior Litigation  Counsel,  and Nelson  Perez-Sosa, Assistant  United
                                         __________________
        States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  NOVEMBER 12, 1997
                                 ____________________

            Per Curiam.   In  this appeal  from the  district court's  summary
            Per Curiam

        denial of his petition for a  writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.   

        2255, Carlos Berrio-Callejas asserts, inter alia, that the court erred
                                              _____ ____

        in implicitly  concluding that the  petition "and records of  the case

        conclusively show that [he] is entitled to no relief," see id., on his
                                                               ___ ___

        claim  of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Specifically, petitioner

        contends that the record does  not conclusively refute his  allegation

        that trial counsel failed to perfect his notice of appeal, despite his

        instructions that she do  so.  See Bonneau v. United  States, 961 F.2d
                                       ___ _______    ______________

        17,  23 (1st Cir.  1992).  We  agree.  The  court had  no authority to

        credit petitioner's  counsel's letter over petitioner's,  cf. Castillo
                                                                  ___ ________

        v.  United  States,  34  F.3d  443,  445-46  (7th Cir.  1994),  as  it
            ______________

        apparently did  in resolving this  issue against him, see  Callejas v.
                                                              ___  ________

        United States,  917 F. Supp.  125, 131-32 (D.  Puerto Rico 1996).   In
        _____________

        addition,  the court's summary of  counsel's letter (which was written

        in  Spanish)  suggests that  the  letter  does  not, in  fact,  refute

        petitioner's claim.  See id. at 131.
                             ___ ___

            We  therefore vacate  and remand with instructions  that the court

        (1)  appoint  counsel for  petitioner  if  he  qualifies for  such  an

        appointment under  18 U.S.C.   3006A(g); and  (2) hold  an evidentiary

        hearing as to whether, and when, petitioner instructed counsel to file

        a notice  of appeal,  see U.S.C.    2255.   Should petitioner  wish to
                              ___

        renew his  alternative argument,  made below but  not on  appeal, that

        counsel was constitutionally  ineffective in failing either to ask him

        whether he wanted to appeal or to inform him of his appeal rights, see
                                                                           ___

                                          2

        Baker  v. Kaiser, 929  F.2d 1495, 1499  (10th Cir.  1991) (counsel has
        _____     ______

        constitutional  duties  along  these lines);  but  see  Castellanos v.
                                                      ___  ___  ___________

        United States, 26 F.3d 717, 719-20 (7th Cir. 1994) (appearing to place
        _____________

        onus on  defendant to request  an appeal); United States  v. Peak, 992
                                                   _____________     ____

        F.2d  39, 41-42  (4th  Cir.  1993) (similar),  the  court should  both

        entertain  it  (if the  court  resolves  the  remanded  issue  against

        petitioner) and make appropriate findings and rulings on it.1

            In light  of how long  this petition has  been pending,  the court

        should appoint counsel forthwith and endeavor  to hold the evidentiary

        hearing as soon as possible.

            Vacated and remanded.
            Vacated and remanded.

                            
        ____________________

        1We do not now address the remaining issues raised by the petition, as
        those issues can be raised on direct appeal  should the district court
        reinstate petitioner's right to take such an appeal.  See Bonneau, 961
                                                              ___ _______
        F.2d  at  23.   In the  event  the district  court does  not reinstate
        petitioner's right to  file a direct appeal, petitioner  may renew his
        appeal of the court's rulings on these issues on collateral review.

                                          3