Filed: Jul. 07, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-3807 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 96-1619-CIV-T-17B JASON TODD MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 7, 1998) Before BLACK, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jason Todd Murray appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to va
Summary: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-3807 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 96-1619-CIV-T-17B JASON TODD MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 7, 1998) Before BLACK, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jason Todd Murray appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vac..
More
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 96-3807
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 96-1619-CIV-T-17B
JASON TODD MURRAY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 7, 1998)
Before BLACK, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Todd Murray appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Initially, we
decide that this appeal is limited to the one issue specified in the certificate of
appealability. Turning to that issue, we also decide that the district court’s
judgment dismissing Murray’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is due to
be affirmed.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1989, Murray pled guilty to possession of cocaine base with intent to
distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and was subsequently sentenced to
188 months in prison. In 1991, he filed a direct appeal of his conviction and
sentence. We affirmed.
On August 23, 1996, Murray filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming:
(1) a Fourth Amendment violation due to an illegal stop and search of his car;
(2) ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel’s failure to inform him
of or to litigate his meritorious Fourth Amendment claim; (3) a sentence based
on erroneous and false information; and (4) a double jeopardy violation.
Without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected all
of Murray’s asserted grounds for relief and dismissed his § 2255 motion.
2
Murray appealed the denial of relief, and we granted a certificate of
appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). We limited the COA
to the following issue:
Whether appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his
attorney failed to argue that the stop and search of appellant’s car violated
the Fourth Amendment.
See § 2253(c)(3) (the COA “shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy
the showing required.”). Notwithstanding our specification of only one issue in
the COA, Murray’s brief raises other issues. It argues the merits of his Fourth
Amendment claim, and also presents instances of ineffective assistance of
counsel other than the one specified in the COA.
II. ISSUES PRESENTED
Murray’s appeal raises two issues. The first is whether we consider on
appeal any issues other than the ones for which a COA was granted pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The second issue is whether the district court erred by
dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, Murray’s claim that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because of his counsel’s performance in
connection with the allegedly meritorious Fourth Amendment claim.
III. THE CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ISSUE
3
Murray’s attempt to have us decide issues other than the one for which we
granted a certificate of appealability presents us with a threshold question: Does
the granting of a COA open up to appellate review all of the issues that
petitioner wishes to pursue, or is review instead confined to the issue specified
in the COA? Although this is a question of first impression in this circuit, see
Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1571 n.4 (11th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
(reserving the issue), it is not a difficult one.
The Fifth Circuit answered this question in Lacky v. Johnson, 116 F.3d
149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997), concluding that the plain import of 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(3) requires that the scope of review in a habeas appeal be limited to
issues specified in the COA. Section 2253(c)(3) mandates that the COA indicate
“which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing” necessary for granting such
a certificate. See also
Hunter, 101 F.3d at 1584 (remanding a case with
instructions that the district court specify the issue or issues meant to be covered
in the COA). As the Fifth Circuit pointed out in Lacky, there would be little
point in Congress requiring specification of the issues for which a COA was
granted if appellate review was not to be limited to the issues specified.
See 116
F.3d at 152.
4
We agree with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning and add a point of our own.
Before enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(“ADEPA”), which included the 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3) COA issue
specification provision, a certificate of probable cause (CPC) to appeal
requirement served much the same appellate gatekeeping function in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 proceedings as the COA requirement does in both §§ 2254 and 2255
proceedings now. See Hunter, 101 F.3d at 1571 & n.4. Under the pre-ADEPA
regime, we held that when a CPC was granted on fewer than all of the issues in
a habeas case, the appeal was limited to the issues specified. See Clisby v.
Alabama,
52 F.3d 905, 906 (11th Cir. 1995) (where district court granted CPC
limited to one issue); Clark v. Dugger,
901 F.2d 908, 910 (11th Cir. 1990) (where
we granted CPC limited to one issue). Thus, even though there was no
requirement that a CPC specify the issues that could be appealed, if it did do so
appellate review was limited to the issues specified. In view of that prior circuit
law, it would be anomalous for us to hold, now that there is an issue
specification requirement, see § 2253(c)(3), that the appeal is not limited to the
issues specified. Consistent with our own prior decisions in Clisby and Clark,
with the Fifth Circuit’s Lacky decision, and with the obvious import of §
5
2253(c)(3), we hold that in an appeal brought by an unsuccessful habeas
petitioner, appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA. We
turn now to the issue specified in the COA issued in this case.
IV. THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM
Although we will not decide any issue not specified in the COA, we will
construe the issue specification in light of the pleadings and other parts of the
record. Because Murray pleaded guilty, we construe the issue specified to
include all aspects of counsel’s performance in connection with the Fourth
Amendment claim as it relates to Murray’s plea conviction. The issue is
whether Murray is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion. We
begin with his allegations and the facts concerning the proceedings to date.
A. MURRAY’S PLEA AGREEMENT
In support of his contention that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel in connection with Fourth Amendment claim, Murray first alleges
certain facts regarding the stop and search of his car on the day of his arrest.
However, the facts that Murray alleges in his § 2255 motion differ from the facts
Murray expressly agreed to in his plea agreement at the time of the entry of his
6
guilty plea. The facts surrounding Murray’s arrest were outlined in his plea
agreement, paragraph 13 of which states as follows:
13. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in
fact guilty of the charges contained in Count One of the
Indictment. In pleading guilty to this Count, defendant
acknowledges the facts as stated in the stipulation
contained below are true, and were the case to go to
trial, the government would be able to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt the following:
Stipulated Facts
On July 27, 1989, the defendant Jason Todd
Murray was operating a motor vehicle in Pinellas
County, Florida. Defendant Deniceso Lopez
Washington was a passenger in the car. Pursuant to an
investigatory stop a deputy with the Pinellas County
Sheriff Department stopped the defendant’s vehicle.
Defendant Murray was questioned by law enforcement
officers and produced a baggie containing marihuana.
The defendant Murray was arrested for the possession
of marihuana.
During the search of the defendant’s rental car
incident to the arrest law enforcement found a bag
containing approximately 884 grams of crack cocaine.
A Pinellas County lab later confirmed that the
substance found was cocaine base a schedule II narcotic
drug.
Fingerprints were found on the outside of the bag
which contained the crack cocaine. These fingerprints
7
have been identified as those of the passenger in the
vehicle, defendant Washington.
After the arrest defendant Murray admitted to
control of the cocaine and knowledge of its presence.
Defendant Murray further told officers that Washington
had control of the cocaine and knowledge of its
presence.
Murray initialed each page of his plea agreement and entered his plea on
the day of his scheduled trial on November 28, 1989. He had two prior felony
convictions for drug-related offenses and was facing the possibility of a
mandatory life sentence if the government filed the information for
enhancement. As part of the plea agreement, the government agreed not to file
the information for enhancement if Murray did not proceed with his Motion to
Suppress.
The plea transcript shows that the government specifically acknowledged
on the record its verbal agreement not to file enhancement information. The
plea transcript also shows that Murray’s counsel specifically acknowledged that
the government could establish the stipulated facts enumerated above and that
Murray was waiving his Motion to Suppress by stipulating to these facts.
B. MURRAY’S MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA
8
After the presentence report was issued showing his guideline sentence,
Murray filed a pro se one-page Motion to Withdraw his plea on February 2,
1990, on the general ground that he believed that it was in his best interest to
withdraw his plea and go to trial. Murray did not mention the Motion to
Suppress. On February 7, 1990, the magistrate judge issued an order stating that
the Motion to Withdraw the plea did not comply with the local rules and giving
Murray additional time to file an amended motion that complied with the local
rules. When no amended motion was filed, the magistrate judge issued a report,
dated February 20, 1990, recommending that the Motion to Withdraw Plea be
denied. On February 26, 1990, Mr. Dillinger, Murray’s retained counsel, filed
an Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea stating that the amended ground for
withdrawing the plea was as follows:
The basis [sic] for the withdrawal of the plea
include the Defendant’s claim of innocence, the belief
that a polygraph would corroborate his innocence, the
belief that the motion to suppress if argued differently
would be granted and that the Defendant having been
mentally prepared for trial in light of the minimum
mandatory life sentence which would have resulted
from a plea and having been offered on the morning of
trial a different plea agreement, did not have sufficient
time to consider the alternatives and as such was under
9
intense pressure to make a quick decision on this
serious matter.
(emphasis supplied.)
Interestingly, the Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea also states that a
Motion to Suppress had been filed previously and was scheduled to be heard the
morning of trial but that the government agreed not to file the information for
enhancement if the defendant did not proceed with his Motion to Suppress:
1. Defendant was scheduled for trial. A motion
to suppress had been previously filed and was
scheduled to be heard on the morning of trial.
2. The Defendant had two (2) or more prior
felony convictions for drug related offenses and as such
under the statute was facing the possibility of a
mandatory life sentence. The Government however,
had not filed the Information for enhancement as of
November 28th.
3. On November 28th, the Government agreed to
not file the Information for enhancement if the
Defendant did not proceed with his motion to suppress.
The Defendant was offered the possibility of testifying
against the Co-defendant as far as a reduction in the
guidelines as well as for a reduction for the admission
of guilt. The Defendant by this plea was only subjected
to a mandatory ten (10) years.
10
In opposition to the amended motion, the government emphasized that
Murray had never maintained or made an assertion of innocence at any time and
that he had offered to testify against his co-defendant Washington; however,
after the court denied Washington’s Motion to Suppress and Washington pled
guilty, Murray was not needed for that purpose.
On April 25, 1990, the district court denied both Murray’s pro se Motion
to Withdraw his plea and the Amended Motion to Withdraw his plea filed by his
counsel, Mr. Dillinger. In its order the district court stated that “[d]efendant has
also argued that a motion to suppress would succeed, if argued differently. In
knowingly waiving a trial by jury, Defendant waived this issue.”
Sentencing was set but later continued because Murray said that his
counsel had made certain representations to him regarding his plea. As a result,
the Federal Public Defender was appointed as new counsel for Murray to
explore the matter. On June 18, 1990, the Public Defender’s Office filed for
Murray a Second Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea for Murray requesting that
the plea be withdrawn on the ground that Murray asserted that his prior counsel
had advised him that if his co-defendant Washington had prevailed on this
11
Motion to Suppress, then Murray would be allowed to withdraw his plea, stating
specifically as follows:
In addition to those matters raised in the previous
motions to withdraw, the defendant would allege the
following.
Prior to the entry of his plea, the defendant was
advised by his then attorney that if the co-defendant
prevailed on the motion to suppress, the defendant
would be allowed to withdraw his plea. According to
the defendant, his attorney was confident that the
motion to suppress would be granted.
On June 18, 1990, the district court referred Murray’s Second Amended
Motion to Withdraw Plea to the magistrate judge for disposition. On July 6,
1990, the magistrate judge scheduled for July 19, 1990 an evidentiary hearing
on the Second Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea.
Thereafter, the magistrate judge entered a detailed report recommending
denial of the Second Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea. The report chronicles
most of the above history of Murray’s plea and motions to withdraw his plea.
The magistrate judge’s report also recites that at the July 19 evidentiary hearing
“neither party had any evidence to offer” and that Murray, “upon conferring
12
with counsel, elected not to testify.” At the end of the report, the magistrate
judge summarized the basis for recommending denial of the motion as follows:
The second amended motion was set for an
evidentiary hearing on July 19, 1990. However, at the
hearing, neither party had any evidence to offer. The
defendant, upon conferring with counsel, elected not to
testify. Moreover, neither party secured the appearance
of Robert Dillinger, the defendant’s counsel during the
events in question. Under these circumstances, there
obviously is no basis for granting the motion to
withdraw plea.
In the first place, the defendant’s motion does not
set forth a claim supporting withdrawal of a guilty plea.
Thus, the only new ground alleged in the second
amended motion was the assertion that defense counsel
had told the defendant that, if the co-defendant were
successful with his motion to suppress, then the
defendant would be permitted to withdraw his plea.
This alleged conditional representation, however, does
not support relief since the co-defendant’s motion to
suppress was denied.
In any event, no evidence was presented that
defense counsel made any such representations. Most
significantly, the defendant declined to testify in
support of his allegation.
For the foregoing reasons, the Second Amended
Motion to Withdraw Plea should be denied.
13
No objections were filed to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. On August 24, 1990, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s report and denied Murray’s Second Amended Motion to Withdraw his
plea and directed that the Courtroom Deputy schedule the case for sentencing.
On October 26, 1990, sentencing was set again and this time Murray
raised another claim as follows: that his prior attorney, Mr. Dillinger, had
advised him that he had fifteen days to withdraw his plea if he should later
change his mind. The district court continued the sentencing again and ordered
Murray to file an affidavit setting forth all of his claims. On November 19,
1990, Murray’s same new counsel with the Federal Public Defender’s office
filed a short Affidavit from Murray, which stated that his prior counsel made
these two representations to him prior to entry of his plea as follows:
1. On November 28, 1989, I entered a plea of
guilty to a one-count indictment charging possession
with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of “crack”
cocaine. This plea was entered on the advice of my
attorney, Robert H. Dillinger. I hereby waive the
attorney client privilege that Mr. Dillinger and I shared
during the preparation of the instant case.
2. Prior to the entry of my plea on November 28th,
Mr. Dillinger made the following representations to me
14
which I relied upon in arriving at my decision to plead
guilty. Those representations are set forth below.
3. I had fifteen (15) days within which to
withdraw the plea if I should later decide that a plea
would not be in my best interest.
4. If my co-defendant, Deniceso Washington,
prevailed on his motion to suppress, then I could
withdraw my plea and proceed to trial.
5. The above statements represent all of the
assurances made to me by Mr. Dillinger in connection
with the entry of the plea.
On January 14, 1991, new counsel also filed a Third Amended Motion to
Withdraw Plea and Request an Evidentiary Hearing. On January 23, 1991, the
district court entered an order denying Murray’s Third Amended Motion to
Withdraw Plea and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing, finding that Murray had
already had a full opportunity to raise these particular issues regarding
representations of counsel in his prior evidentiary hearing but that Murray had
elected not to present them.
C. SENTENCING
At the sentencing hearing on February 15, 1991, Murray’s counsel
reviewed the offense conduct in the presentence report to which Murray
15
objected. Regarding the traffic stop of his vehicle, Murray’s new counsel stated
that Murray’s position was that he stopped as soon as he was blue-lighted by the
officer, that his co-defendant Washington started running but that Murray did
not, and that when the officer asked him about cocaine, Murray denied having
it. Murray’s counsel also states that Murray “told the officers he did have
marijuana and voluntarily emptied his pockets.” At the sentencing Murray
denied knowing about any cocaine in the vehicle and professed his innocence.
The government stressed this contradicted the facts to which Murray stipulated
when he pled guilty.
D. APPEAL
The same attorney with the Federal Public Defender’s office represented
Murray in his direct appeal. The only issue raised in Murray’s appellate brief
was whether the district court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the plea
constituted an arbitrary or unreasonable decision given the circumstances of the
case. This court affirmed the decision of the district court under Eleventh
Circuit Rule 36-1. See United States v. Murray, 946 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied
502 U.S. 1113,
112 S. Ct. 1220 (1992).
E. DISCUSSION
16
Assuming that Murray was ever entitled to an evidentiary hearing on
whether he received effective assistance of counsel in regard to his guilty plea,
he got it in connection with his Second Amended Motion to Withdraw Plea. At
that hearing, Murray, represented by new counsel, elected not to testify and
presented no evidence at all to back up his allegations. The most Murray is
entitled to is one opportunity to prove his allegations, and he got it. He is not
entitled to two opportunities. To the extent Murray has raised different
allegations of ineffectiveness in relation to the plea since his Second Amended
Motion to Withdraw Plea was denied, that does not entitle him to another
evidentiary hearing either.
A guilty plea means something. It is not an invitation to a continuing
litigation dialogue between a criminal defendant and the court. A defendant
who is given an evidentiary hearing on the validity of his guilty plea must seize
the opportunity and present every allegation and all the supporting evidence he
has then at the peril of being foreclosed from doing so in the future. Murray had
a chance to come forward with evidence to back up his allegations, and he
decided not to do so. He could not thereafter change his mind about that, as he
apparently has about his guilty plea, and expect the law to accommodate him.
17
V. CONCLUSION
The district court’s dismissal of Murray’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is AFFIRMED.
18
