U.S. v. Campbell, 87-7720

• Decision Date: 25 March 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-7720,87-7720
• Citation: 842 F.2d 1292
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith A. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1292

842 F.2d 1292

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith A. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-7720.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 21, 1988.

Decided March 25, 1988.

Keith A. Campbell, appellant pro se.

John C. Belcher, Office of the United States Attorney, for appellee.

Before K.K. HALL, SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Keith Anthony Campbell pled guilty in 1985 to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Campbell moved prior to sentencing to withdraw his plea, contending that he only pled guilty because he thought he would be released on bond, but the district court denied this motion, and this ruling was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Campbell, No. 85-5295 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 1986) (unpublished). Campbell then moved for relief from his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255, claiming that his attorneys were ineffective in telling him that he would receive two years if he pled guilty but that he should deny the existence of such a promise at his plea hearing, in telling him that the prosecutor would remain silent at sentencing, and in telling him that he would be released after service of nine months. Campbell's former attorneys filed affidavits denying that they had told Campbell that such an agreement existed and stating that they had only discussed predictions of possible sentences with Campbell. The district court denied relief under Sec. 2255.

On appeal Campbell contends that the district court erred in denying relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We reject this contention, finding Campbell's allegations concerning an agreement outside the terms disclosed at the plea hearing to be so "palpably incredible" when viewed against the record that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977) (quoting Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495-96 (1962)). Not only did Campbell deny under oath at his plea hearing the existence of any promises outside the terms of the written agreement, he also volunteered both at his plea hearing and his plea withdrawal hearing a...