Filed: May 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13500 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00041-RH-GRJ-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALTON EUGENE DIGGS, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (May 26, 2015) Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-13500 Date File
Summary: Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13500 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00041-RH-GRJ-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALTON EUGENE DIGGS, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (May 26, 2015) Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-13500 Date Filed..
More
Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13500
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00041-RH-GRJ-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALTON EUGENE DIGGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 26, 2015)
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 2 of 6
Alton Diggs appeals pro se the denial of his motion for an out-of-time
appeal based on the alleged failure of trial counsel to file a notice of appeal. The
district court treated Diggs’s motion as a request for an extension of time to file a
notice of appeal and denied the motion as untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).
Because the district court should have construed Diggs’s motion as seeking to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we vacate and remand
for the district court to determine whether Diggs is entitled to an out-of-time appeal
on the ground that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to comply with Diggs’s
instruction to pursue a direct appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
Diggs entered an agreement to plead guilty to conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(ii)–(iii), 846. The plea agreement stated that Diggs “face[d], due to a
prior drug felony conviction, a minimum of twenty years imprisonment,” see 21
U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); “the sentence imposed [was] left solely to the discretion of
the District Court”; and Diggs and the government “reserve[d] the right to appeal
any sentence imposed.” Diggs’s presentence investigation report provided that
Diggs had an offense level of 34 and, with a criminal history score of VI, had an
advisory guideline range of 262 to 327 months of imprisonment. The government
2
Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 3 of 6
moved for a downward departure based on Diggs’s substantial assistance. See
United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 (Nov. 2012).
On January 14, 2014, the district court granted the motion of the government
and departed downward to sentence Diggs to 10 years of imprisonment. The
district court advised Diggs that he had a right to appeal; twice remarked to Diggs
that he had to file his notice of appeal within 14 days; and urged Diggs to “talk
with [his] lawyer . . . to make sure that [he] ha[d] a clear understanding of whether
[Diggs] [did] or [did] not wish to appeal . . . .” See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
The district court also advised trial counsel to either “file the notice and go
forward” or to “write [Diggs] a letter to make sure that there is no
misunderstanding and to bring home the importance of the decision.” The district
court explained that, if Diggs chose to appeal, his attorney could file a notice of
appeal or “[t]he clerk of court [could] file a notice at [Diggs’s] request.”
On January 22, 2014, Diggs submitted a letter to the district court that
requested a reduction of his sentence. The district court interpreted the letter as
seeking reconsideration of Diggs’s sentence and denied relief on January 28, 2014.
On May 28, 2014, Diggs filed pro se a motion for leave to file an out-of-
time appeal. In the motion, Diggs alleged that he was “denied the opportunity to
file a direct appeal because of his trial counsel’s failure to fulfill his . . . duty to
consult with [Diggs] about [an] appeal[] . . . even though [Diggs] was clear in
3
Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 4 of 6
communicatin[g] to his counsel the desire to file a direct appeal in the case.”
Because Diggs, “being untrained in the law, [did not] know . . . the correct method
. . . to request an Out-of-Time appeal . . ., [he] move[d] the Court to accept this
Motion or to look behind the title of this Motion and to apply such vehicle as
[would] permit [his] journey to a direct appeal.” Diggs reiterated that, “[i]f . . . this
Motion . . . is not sufficient for the Court to act, . . . [that it] look behind the title of
the motion and recharacterize it as such pleading as will permit the Court to act
thereon.” Diggs also “specifically move[d] the Court to recharacterize this action
as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 should that be the case; as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appears to be
the most correct method by which to raise this issue.”
The district court treated Diggs’s motion as requesting an extension of time
to file an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), and denied that motion as untimely.
The district court ruled that Diggs failed to move for an extension of time within
30 days of the time to file a notice of appeal, whether that deadline was calculated
from the entry of his sentence or the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Even
if “Diggs’s allegation that he clearly communicated to his attorney that he wished
to appeal” were true and “would constitute excusable neglect for good cause,” the
district court explained, Rule 4(b)(4) “prohibit[ed] an extension of the length Mr.
Diggs . . . requested.”
4
Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 5 of 6
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the conclusions of law by the district court in a
proceeding for postconviction relief. Gomez-Diaz v. United States, 433 F.3d 788,
790 (11th Cir. 2005).
III. DISCUSSION
The district court misconstrued Diggs’s motion. The district court failed to
construe a pleading filed by Diggs, a pro se litigant, liberally, Winthrop-Redin v.
United States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014), and to “determine whether
[Diggs’s] motion [was], in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory
framework,” United States v. Jordan,
915 F.2d 622, 624–25 (11th Cir. 1990).
Diggs sought an out-of-time appeal on the ground that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to file a notice of appeal, which federal courts adjudicate routinely in a
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Otero v.
United States,
499 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2007); Gomez-Diaz,
433 F.3d 788;
Montemoino v. United States,
68 F.3d 416 (11th Cir. 1995). And the district court
ignored Diggs’s explicit entreaties to “look behind the title of []his Motion” and
“recharacterize []his action as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255” because that “appear[ed] to be
the most correct method by which to raise []his issue.” Diggs alleged that he was
“denied the opportunity to file a direct appeal because of his trial counsel’s failure”
to file a notice of appeal. “When a defendant loses the opportunity to appeal due to
5
Case: 14-13500 Date Filed: 05/26/2015 Page: 6 of 6
constitutionally defective counsel, . . . [he should be] put . . . back in the position
he would have been in had his lawyer filed a timely notice of appeal.” McIver v.
United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1331 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). If trial counsel ignored Diggs’s “clear . . . [instruction] to file a
direct appeal,” he is entitled to the “entry of a new judgment for the purpose of
permitting the perfection of an appeal,”
id. at 1330 (citing Rodriquez v. United
States,
395 U.S. 327, 332,
89 S. Ct. 1715, 1718 (1969)), regardless of whether
“there would have been any viable grounds for an appeal,”
Montemoino, 68 F.3d at
417. Because the district court erred when it failed to treat Diggs’s motion as filed
under section 2255, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
IV. CONCLUSION
We VACATE the decision that treated Diggs’s motion as requesting an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal and denied that motion as untimely. We
REMAND with instructions for the district court to construe Diggs’s motion as
seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and to
conduct further proceedings to determine whether Diggs’s trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal, which would entitle Diggs to an
out-of-time appeal.
6
