U.S. v. Hughes
Citation | 514 F.3d 15 |
Decision Date | 25 January 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 06-3180.,06-3180. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Ronald R. HUGHES, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 93cr00097-04).
Edward C. Sussman, appointed by the court, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
John P. Mannarino, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the briefs were Jefrey A. Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and Roy W. McLeese, III, Mary B. McCord, and Carolyn K. Kolben, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
Before: BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
After being convicted of federal crimes, Ronald Hughes raises two claims on collateral review: (1) a judicial bias claim, which he procedurally defaulted, and (2) an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which we reject.
A jury convicted Ronald Hughes of multiple federal crimes, the details of which are described in our opinion affirming his convictions. See United States v. White, 116 F.3d 903, 909-10 (D.C.Cir.1997). Hughes filed a petition to vacate his convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Hughes asserts two claims on collateral, review. First, he claims the trial judge exhibited bias and hostility toward his trial counsel, rendering his trial constitutionally unfair. See generally United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080, 1099-1103 (D.C.Cir. 1995) ( ). For example, the judge told Hughes's trial counsel:
If you don't like what I did, that's your privilege as a lawyer. You can do two things. Number one, you can go out to the next tavern or bar and have a drink and curse the judge, and number two, you can go to the court of appeals and say the dumb bastard didn't know what he was doing. But I don't want you to come back day after day saying, yester-day you did something wrong again.
Second, Hughes asserts he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. According to Hughes, the trial judge's "battering of trial counsel rendered her ineffective" and caused her "severe emotional distress." In an effort to avoid incurring the judge's ire, counsel purportedly advised Hughes not to testify, refrained from making certain mistrial motions, and abstained from some cross-examination.
The procedural default rule generally precludes consideration of an argument made on collateral review that was not made on direct appeal, unless the defendant shows cause and prejudice. See, e.g., Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003) (citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)); United States v. Mathis, 503 F.3d 150, 152-53 (D.C.Cir. 2007). This rule "respect[s] the law's important interest in the finality of judgments" and conserves judicial resources. Massaro, 538 U.S. at 504,1.23 S.Ct. 1690.
Because Hughes did not raise his judicial bias claim on direct appeal, the procedural default rule bars its consideration unless an exception applies or Hughes demonstrates cause and prejudice. Inexplicably, Hughes's opening brief does not acknowledge the existence of the procedural default rule; his reply brief contains no argument whatsoever to show the cause and prejudice requirements have been satisfied for his judicial bias claim; and he offers no colorable reason why the procedural default rule should not apply to this claim. Accordingly, we need not address Hughes's procedurally defaulted judicial bias claim on the merits. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C.Cir.2004) (); Ark Las Vegas Rest. Corp. v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 99, 108 n. 4 (D.C.Cir. 2003) ( ).
Hughes also raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Most ineffectiveness claims proceed under Strickland v. Washington's familiar two-step framework, which requires (1) showing "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" and (2) demonstrating "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have' been different:" 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see, e.g., United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 & n. 26, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). However, in a "very narrow range of situations," courts presume "actual prejudice to the defendant." 27 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 644.61[3][c] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.2007); see Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658-59 & nn.25-26, 104 S.Ct. 2039; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Prejudice is presumed where counsel "entirely fail[ed] to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing" or was "totally absent, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding." E.g., Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658-59 & nn.25-26, 104 S.Ct. 2039. One category of presumed prejudice cases arises where the "[g]overnment . . . interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 91, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976) ( ); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 864-65, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975) ( ); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612-13, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972) ( ); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 591-96, 81 S.Ct. 756, 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961) ( ).
Hughes seems—somewhat unwittingly—to make a presumed prejudice argument based on government interference with his counsel. His brief asserts "the court's battering of trial counsel rendered her ineffective" and, at oral argument, he described judicial bias as an essential predicate of his ineffectiveness claim. However, since Hughes does not cite any government interference cases—much less make a specific argument that those cases are analogous to his—he has waived any potential government interference claim.1 See Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 749 F.2d 856, 859 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1984) ( ); see also Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531, 539-40 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1999) (en banc) ( ); United States v. South, 28 F.3d 619, 629 (7th Cir.1994) .
Hughes's brief discusses Strickland's two-pronged test, which he refers to as "the established standard." We can analyze his Strickland claim because, under Massaro, 538 U.S. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. West
...made on collateral review that was not made on direct appeal, unless the defendant shows cause and prejudice." United States v. Hughes , 514 F.3d 15, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008). A number of my colleagues have convincingly rejected similar procedural default arguments by the Government in the conte......
-
United States v. Simmons, Criminal No. 04–128–15 (RMC).
... ... United States v. Hughes, 514 F.3d 15, 17 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052) (quotation marks omitted). The burden of proof ... ...
- United States v. Taylor
-
United States v. Sumner
...review that was not made on direct appeal, unless the defendant shows cause and prejudice.’ " Id. (quoting United States v. Hughes , 514 F.3d 15, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ); see also United States v. Lane , 267 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2001) ("[W]aiving or foregoing a direct appeal bars collatera......
-
Review Proceedings
...F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2011) (challenge to designation as career offender waived because not raised on direct appeal); U.S. v. Hughes, 514 F.3d 15, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (challenge to judicial bias waived because not raised on direct appeal). But see, e.g. , Oakes v. U.S., 400 F.3d 92, 98......