U.S. v. Stearns
| Decision Date | 11 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-35451,94-35451 |
| Citation | 68 F.3d 328 |
| Parties | 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8030, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,782 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Edward STEARNS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John P. Daugirda, Roost & Daugirda, Eugene, Oregon, for defendant-appellant.
Deborah J. Dealy-Browning, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, Oregon, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Richard Edward Stearns pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(a). He was sentenced and did not appeal, but about two years later he filed a petition which alleged that his attorney had failed to file a notice of appeal, as requested. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. The district court denied the petition, and Stearns appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Stearns was charged with the robbery of a bank in Medford, Oregon. He pled guilty to that charge, but before his sentencing he was charged with the further crime of robbing a bank in Bonita, California. That case was transferred to the federal district court in Oregon, and he pled guilty to that charge also.
On February 5, 1992, the district court sentenced him on both charges, and no appeal followed. However, on February 1, 1994, Stearns filed a petition under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 in which he alleged, among other things, that his attorney was ineffective because she "failed to advise him of his right to appeal his sentence, and failed to file a timely notice of appeal." He added that he "had expressed his desire so to do to counsel." In a letter to Stearns, counsel had indicated that her practice was to discuss appeals with her client but that she had no "independent recollection one way or another about discussing your right of appeal with you at the time of sentencing."
The district court denied Stearns' petition because "petitioner told the court [at sentencing] he was satisfied with his attorney, the court advised the petitioner of his right to appeal and how to pursue it, and petitioner has refused to waive the attorney/client privilege thereby depriving the government of responding to the issue." Stearns appealed and we reverse.
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.
We review the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion de novo. United States v. Roberts, 5 F.3d 365, 368 (9th Cir.1993). We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. Id. We review the district court's resolution of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. See United States v. Horodner, 993 F.2d 191, 194 (9th Cir.1993).
Because Stearns' claim is that counsel was ineffective, we start with the familiar requirement that he must show: (1) "that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment," and (2) "that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We have previously applied those elements to a claim that counsel improperly failed to file a notice of appeal.
In Lozada v. Deeds, 964 F.2d 956 (9th Cir.1992), the petitioner had been convicted in the state courts of Nevada. He sought habeas corpus relief in which he claimed that counsel had not filed a notice of appeal for him. We declared:
We hold that prejudice is presumed under Strickland if it is established that counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal was without the petitioner's consent. We remand for a determination of whether the failure to file the notice of appeal was without Lozada's consent. If that is the case, petitioner is entitled to relief by way of a conditional writ.
Id. at 958-59 (emphasis added). We returned to the issue in Horodner, where the petitioner had been convicted after a trial in the United States district court. His appeal was dismissed because the notice of appeal was filed late. 993 F.2d at 195. We said that whether the failure to file a timely appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel depended upon whether Horodner had "consented to abandonment of his appeal." Id. We went on to say, "unless Horodner consented to the abandonment of his appeal, his counsel's failure to file a timely notice of appeal resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel which prejudiced Horodner in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights."
That authority would automatically demand reversal in this case, but for one distinction. The judgment in this case was entered after a plea rather than after a trial. That, however, is a distinction without a difference. We see no principled way to distinguish a failure to file a notice of appeal after a judgment following a plea from a failure to file after a judgment following a trial. It is true that in the latter situation there may well be more issues to raise on appeal, but that is a factor of no real importance. Similarly, it might be more obvious to counsel that a defendant may well wish to appeal after a trial, but given the inspissate brumes generated by the guidelines, counsel can hardly assume that a defendant who has pled guilty does not wish to appeal his sentence. No doubt the situation could be different if the plea agreement itself waived the right to appeal. Suffice it to say that is not this case.
Other courts have reached the conclusion that a failure to appeal after a plea does, indeed, result in ineffective assistance of counsel, without a specific showing of prejudice. See Castellanos v. United States, 26 F.3d 717, 719 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 42 (4th Cir.1993). The law applied in those cases was slightly different from the law of this circuit because in those cases the petitioner had requested that an appeal be filed, and counsel had not followed the request. Castellanos, at least, put much weight on the need for that request. 26 F.3d at 719. In so doing it relied on cases where a request was made after a trial, and stated that a " '[r]equest' is an important ingredient in this formula." Id.
Again, however, we have said that the answer turns on the question of whether the petitioner consented to the failure to file a notice of appeal, rather than on whether counsel ignored an explicit request to file. Of course, Stearns says that he did make a request, but he need only show that he did not consent to the failure to file.
We are asked to consider the merits of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Hernandez
...with the refusal of the court to appoint substitute counsel, amounted to a denial of fundamental due process); United States v. Stearns, 68 F.3d 328, 329-30 (9th Cir. 1995)("a failure to appeal after a plea does, indeed, result in ineffective assistance of counsel without a specific showing......
-
U.S. v. Vazque-Munoz
...applied to cases in which the client merely failed to consent to the failure of his counsel to file an appeal. See United States v. Stearns, 68 F.3d 328, 330 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that a defendant need only show that he did not consent to his counsel's failure to file an appeal for it to ......
-
United States v. Chan
...In Ortega (a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas and pre-AEDPA case), we considered whether a habeas petitioner could rely on our decision in United States v. Stearns (a § 2255 case) for his own habeas relief, and we conducted a Teague analysis of Stearns. Ortega v. Roe, 160 F.3d 534, 535–36 (9th Cir.1......
-
Lewis v. Johnson
...expressly instructed that an appeal not be taken. 528 U.S. at 478, 120 S.Ct. 1029. The Court quickly concluded that the rule, known as the "Stearns rule,"12 was contrary to Strickland, holding: Such a rule effectively imposes an obligation on counsel in all cases either (1) to file a notice......