Background
Patrick Wayne Anderson pleaded guilty in the District of Idaho to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl after the court denied his suppression motion. His plea agreement waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.
Six months after sentencing, Anderson filed a verified pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He alleged that counsel failed to file an appeal after Anderson directed him to do so. At the district court’s direction, trial counsel submitted a declaration denying that Anderson requested an appeal. The district court denied relief without a hearing, reasoning that Anderson’s appeal waiver made an appeal futile and that the parties’ written accounts would merely be repeated in live testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit vacated the denial of Anderson’s § 2255 motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Construed liberally, Anderson’s verified pro se motion specifically alleged that he directed counsel to appeal after sentencing. If true, that allegation states a claim for ineffective assistance because counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal despite an express instruction is deficient performance and presumptively prejudicial.
The conflicting sworn statements from Anderson and his attorney did not conclusively establish that Anderson was entitled to no relief. The district court abused its discretion by deciding credibility from declarations alone. Neither the apparent lack of merit in a potential appeal nor Anderson’s appellate waiver justified dispensing with a hearing; the relevant injury is the loss of an appeal the defendant otherwise would have taken.
Key Takeaways
- A § 2255 movant who credibly alleges that counsel ignored an express instruction to appeal states an ineffective-assistance claim, even after signing an appeal waiver.
- Conflicting sworn accounts about whether the defendant requested an appeal ordinarily require an evidentiary hearing to resolve credibility.
- Judicial efficiency and the perceived futility of the underlying appeal do not satisfy § 2255(b)’s requirement that the record conclusively show no entitlement to relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that an appeal waiver does not relieve counsel of the duty to file a notice of appeal when a client expressly instructs counsel to do so. It also limits district courts’ ability to reject such § 2255 claims solely by crediting counsel’s declaration over a prisoner’s verified allegation.