Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
JUL 26 2001
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
v.
GARY RAY CROWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
that Gaddy had been ineffective in not providing him copies of these discovery
materials.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on these motions at which
Crowell and others testified. The district court denied the motion to appoint new
counsel and the motion to withdraw the plea and sentenced Crowell to life
imprisonment. Gaddy immediately wrote a letter to Crowell recommending that
he file an appeal, and informing him of the appeal deadline and how to have the
court clerk enter a notice of appeal on his behalf. Gaddy told Crowell to contact
him if he wanted any further assistance from Gaddy, though he did not expressly
offer to file an appeal for Crowell. Crowell was in transit to a new prison at the
time, and did not receive Gaddys letter until after the appeal deadline had
passed. 1 Crowell did not attempt to contact Gaddy.
Crowell did not file his 2255 motion until ten years later, in 1997. He
raised numerous arguments, including a claim that his guilty plea was not
knowing and voluntary and claims that he was denied due process and ineffective
assistance of counsel because he was not informed of his right to appeal and
because Gaddy failed to perfect a direct appeal. After Crowell filed his 2255
There is some conflict in the record as to when Crowell received the letter,
which was dated June 1, 1987. In his 2255 motion, Crowell stated that he
arrived at the federal prison on June 10, 1987, and received his mail some days
later. At his 2255 evidentiary hearing, however, Crowell testified that he did
not receive the letter until the end of July, 1987.
1
-3-
sua sponte
Governing 2255 Proceedings and denied the motion. Rule 9(a) provides the
state with an equitable defense to unjustifiably delayed petitions.
Hannon v.
was barred by
Rule 9(a), holding that it is an affirmative defense that the government waived by
failing to raise it.
(10th Cir. Apr. 21, 1999). We affirmed the dismissal of some of Crowells claims
as without merit.
relating to the voluntariness of his guilty plea and his ineffective assistance of
counsel claims could only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing and remanded the
case to the district court for further proceedings.
Id. at **3.
II.
To be entitled to a COA, Crowell must make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). He may make this
showing by demonstrating that the issues he raises are debatable among jurists,
that a court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions presented
deserve further proceedings.
(2000). We have reviewed Crowells request for a COA, his appellate briefs, the
magistrate judges report and recommendation, adopted by the district court, the
transcript of the evidentiary hearing held in the district court, and the entire
appellate record and conclude that Crowell has failed to make the required
showing for a COA.
-5-
A.
Crowell claims he was denied due process and effective assistance of
counsel because he was never informed of his right to appeal. The magistrate
judge found, with record support, that Crowell was aware of his right to appeal
based on (1) evidence that the sentencing judge uniformly advised defendants of
their right to appeal using a standardized sentencing memorandum, consistent
with the courts obligation under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(a)(2) (1987) to inform a
defendant of his right to appeal;
687-88, 694 (1984), which requires the petitioner to show that counsels
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the
petitioner was prejudiced by counsels deficient performance.
Roe v.
Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 476-77 (2000). In cases such as this one where the
defendant has not clearly conveyed to counsel whether or not he wishes to pursue
an appeal, the court must first ascertain whether counsel consulted with the
defendant regarding a possible appeal by advising the defendant about the
advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal, and making a reasonable effort
to discover the defendants wishes.
Id. at 484.
wishes, we nevertheless agree with the magistrate judge that Crowell failed to
show that this deficiency prejudiced him because he failed to establish that, but
for Gaddys performance, he would have timely appealed.
When Crowell received Gaddys letter in June or July 1987, he did nothing
for weeks, even months. He made no attempt to contact Gaddy, nor did he make
any immediate attempt to file a late appeal. Had he taken any action upon receipt
of Gaddys letter, he or Gaddy might have been able to file a request to file a late
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b) (1987), which, as then in effect,
authorized the district court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal based on
a finding of excusable neglect. Crowells first attempt to contact the district court
was not until September 1987, when he requested the appointment of counsel. He
again sought the appointment of counsel in October 1987 and, in November 1987,
wrote a letter to the court seeking copies of documents and transcripts. In both
October and November, the district court wrote to Crowell explaining that he
could raise his claims in a 2255 motion and the court provided him with the
necessary forms and instructions to file such a motion. Yet, Crowell waited ten
years before filing his 2255 motion. Thus, the magistrate judge correctly
concluded that Crowell failed to demonstrate that, but for Gaddys failure to
consult adequately with him, he would have timely appealed.
-8-
C.
Finally, Crowell contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary
because Gaddy withheld three exculpatory documents, failed to inform him that
Arizona might still pursue charges against him, and incorrectly told him that any
sentence he received in Arizona would run concurrent with his federal sentence.
At the time Crowell pled guilty, he signed an affidavit acknowledging that his
plea was knowing and voluntary. The affidavit clearly indicates Crowell was
aware of the possibility that Arizona would still prosecute him. The magistrate
judge found no evidence to support Crowells claim that Gaddy advised him any
Arizona sentence would be concurrent and found, for numerous reasons, that
Crowells testimony on this point was not credible. As to the three allegedly
undisclosed documents, we have already determined that discovery material
similar to one document, an interview with the victims aunt and uncle, was not
exculpatory or material.
uncles statement under
introduced into the record copies of the remaining two allegedly undisclosed
documents, though it is his burden to establish what the allegedly exculpatory
evidence is. He claims there was a laboratory result allegedly finding no blood,
skin or hair on a piece of rope. We agree with the magistrate judge that such a
report would not be exculpatory because there is no evidence it was the rope used
-9-
to tie the victim. Crowell also claims there was a medical report of the victim
showing that she had no cuts or bruises. We agree with the magistrate judge that
such a report, while somewhat exculpatory, would not necessarily impeach the
victims statement that Crowell tied her up and raped her. Considering all the
circumstances, we agree with the magistrate judge that the allegedly withheld
material did not compromise the voluntary and knowing nature of Crowells plea.
In summary, Crowell failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right and, accordingly, he is not entitled to a COA.
See
2253(c)(1)(B). The magistrate judge wrote a lengthy, thorough, and wellreasoned report and recommendation that was adopted by the district court. We
agree with its analysis and ultimate decision to deny habeas relief.
We DENY Crowells application for a COA and DISMISS this appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-10-