United States v. Seeley
| Decision Date | 17 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-2083,13-2083 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOANNE M. SEELEY, Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 21, 2014
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.
Joanne M. Seeley ("Appellant") appeals from the District Court's order denying her petition seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.Appellant also contends that the District Court erred in failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte prior to her sentencing. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court's denial of her habeas petition, and find that the District Court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing.
Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we recount only the facts essential to our discussion.
Between 2005 and 2008, Seeley masterminded a scheme that ultimately defrauded the owners of 46 homes out of more than $2.4 million. Seeley convinced the owners of properties facing foreclosure to sell their properties to her. Seeley then assured each homeowner that she would lease the property back to them temporarily, and allow them to purchase the property back within a year. Homeowners would sign over the equity in their properties to her to be placed in escrow as a down payment on the repurchase of those properties. However, instead of delivering the funds to escrow, she converted the funds to her own use. In order to perpetuate her scheme, Seeley submitted numerous false statements and other documentation to lending institutions in order to obtain the mortgages necessary to purchase the foreclosure rescue properties.
On February 23, 2011, a grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a 10-count indictment alleging five counts of wire fraud, and five counts of money laundering.
Seeley contends that her lawyer, Lori Ulrich, was aware of her history of mentalillness from the outset of their attorney/client relationship, admitting to Ulrich that she suffered from Bipolar disorder. Seeley's mental health issues created problems, principally communicative, between she and Ulrich. At times, Seeley failed to return Ulrich's phone calls or assist in discussing the impending trial. In light of these difficulties, Ulrich arranged for Seeley to undergo a private competency hearing. Ulrich opted for a private consultation, in part, because she did not want to subject Seeley to the risk of being placed in the Bureau of Prisons' custody.
On June 30, 2011, Seeley visited Dr. Kristi Compton of Dallas, Texas for a competency evaluation. As a result of the visit, Dr. Compton issued a competency report. Dr. Compton indicated that Seeley: 1) had a sufficient factual and rational understanding of the role of each party in a criminal justice proceeding; 2) was significantly impeded in her ability to comprehend instructions and to make rational decisions regarding her case; 3) was prevented from being able to testify calmly and rationally; 4) was at risk of engaging in inappropriate behavior in the courtroom; and 5) was able to assist her attorney in a fact-finding and/or mitigation investigation, though when in a manic state, her ability to do so would be "unlikely."
As a result of these findings, Dr. Compton concluded that Seeley was not competent to stand trial. However, the Doctor did note that with some adjustments to Seeley's medication, she could return to competency with outpatient treatment in as little as four weeks.
The next day, Ulrich received a plea offer from the United States Attorney'sOffice.
Ulrich and Seeley spoke by phone two times on July 11, 2011. They discussed Dr. Compton's findings, and Seeley agreed to follow-up with her treating psychiatrist for medication management in an effort to progress towards competency. Due to continued communication problems and concerns that Seeley was not taking her medication in sufficient doses to restore her competency, Ulrich and an investigator from the Federal Public Defender's Office traveled to Texas in mid-July 2011 to meet with Seeley. At the meeting, Seeley and Ulrich discussed the case for hours and Seeley proved to be helpful in preparing her defense. They also discussed the government's plea offer, despite Dr. Compton's finding of Seeley's incompetency to stand trial. Seeley was not interested in pleading guilty, rather she continued to avow her innocence.
In light of the meeting and how Seeley comported herself, Ulrich believed that Seeley understood the nature of the plea agreement she had rejected. On the other hand, Ulrich also continued to be concerned about Seeley's failure to adjust her medications.
After the meeting, Ulrich sent Seeley a letter expressing her concern that Seeley had not taken the steps necessary to return herself to competence. Ulrich warned Seeley that she (Ulrich) would be obligated to a file a motion for a competency hearing with the District Court if Seeley did not cooperate with her. The warning compelled Seeley to adjust her medication. Upon reevaluation in September, Dr. Compton found Seeley to be competent to stand trial.
At Seeley's trial, the jury convicted Seeley on eight counts. After her conviction,Seeley was displeased with Ulrich's performance as her lawyer. In June 2012, Seeley submitted a letter to the District Court requesting new counsel. In the letter, Seeley complained that Ulrich had not alerted the District Court to Seeley's incompetency prior to trial, and had discussed the July 1, 2011 plea offer with her while she was incompetent. This letter was the initial notice to the District Court of Seeley's mental issues and incompetency.
On July 11, 2012, the District Court conducted an ex parte hearing. Seeley presented her arguments regarding Ulrich's removal. As part of the hearing, Seeley informed the court that she was taking new medications and she was not yet up to therapeutic dosage levels. Ulrich testified that she had no reason to doubt Seeley's competency prior to trial, nor in light of Seeley's impending sentencing hearing. While on the stand, Ulrich pointed to a meeting and email communication to demonstrate that Seeley appeared competent. The District Court declined to remove Ulrich as counsel, and no competency hearing was requested or ordered as a result of that hearing.
Seeley's sentencing hearing was conducted the following week and she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 238 months.
On October 22, 2012, Seeley filed a timely motion to vacate her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective. After additional briefing and appointment of new counsel, the District Court held a hearing. The District Court denied Seeley's § 2255 motion, and declined Seeley's request for issuance of a certificate of appealability.
Seeley filed a timely notice of appeal, followed soon after by an application seeking a certificate of appealability. This Court granted Seeley's certificate of appealability regarding the two issues now before us: 1) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with Seeley's mental competence during plea bargaining, before trial, and before sentencing; and 2) whether the District Court erred by not holding a competency hearing sua sponte before sentencing.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. "In a federal habeas corpus proceeding, we exercise plenary review of the district court's legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to the court's factual findings." United States v. Lilly, 536 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2008).
Seeley argues that her trial counsel and the District Court failed to observe the necessary procedural safeguards to ensure that she was competent during each stage of the criminal case against her.
Seeley offers two reasons why Ulrich's counsel was ineffective. First, she argues that her trial counsel should have requested that the District Court hold a competency hearing. Second, she argues that Ulrich was ineffective in that she only discussed the government's plea offer with her during a period of undisputed incompetency. Seeleycontends that since her mental health has improved, she would have accepted the plea agreement, thereby altering the outcome of her case.
A prisoner in federal custody may move to vacate a sentence if it "was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A prisoner seeking relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden to demonstrate two requirements. "First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Second, "the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Id. In this regard, the defendant "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694.
We have "endorsed the practical suggestion in Strickland [that we may] consider the prejudice prong before examining the performance of counsel prong because this course of action is less burdensome to defense counsel." Lilly, 536 F.3d at 196 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Finding that approach appropriate here, we conclude that Seeley fails to demonstrate the requisite prejudice entitling her to relief. To that end, her claim may be resolved on this ground without deciding whether counsel's performance was constitutionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial