Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Berrio-Callejas v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    (1) The US Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Carlos Berrio-Callejas' habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly credited counsel's letter over Berrio-Callejas' allegations of ineffective assistance regarding his notice of appeal. (2) On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint counsel for Berrio-Callejas if he qualifies, and hold an evidentiary hearing on whether and when he instructed counsel to file a notice of appeal. The district court should also consider Berrio-Callejas' alternative argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask about an appeal or inform him of his appeal rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Berrio-Callejas v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    29 views8 pages
    (1) The US Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Carlos Berrio-Callejas' habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly credited counsel's letter over Berrio-Callejas' allegations of ineffective assistance regarding his notice of appeal. (2) On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint counsel for Berrio-Callejas if he qualifies, and hold an evidentiary hearing on whether and when he instructed counsel to file a notice of appeal. The district court should also consider Berrio-Callejas' alternative argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask about an appeal or inform him of his appeal rights.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-11-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 96-1524

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The US Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Carlos Berrio-Callejas' habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly credited counsel's letter over Berrio-Callejas' allegations of ineffective assistance regarding his notice of appeal. (2) On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint counsel for Berrio-Callejas if he qualifies, and hold an evidentiary hearing on whether and when he instructed counsel to file a notice of appeal. The district court should also consider Berrio-Callejas' alternative argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask about an appeal or inform him of his appeal rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    29 views8 pages

    Berrio-Callejas v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    (1) The US Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Carlos Berrio-Callejas' habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals found that the district court improperly credited counsel's letter over Berrio-Callejas' allegations of ineffective assistance regarding his notice of appeal. (2) On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint counsel for Berrio-Callejas if he qualifies, and hold an evidentiary hearing on whether and when he instructed counsel to file a notice of appeal. The district court should also consider Berrio-Callejas' alternative argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask about an appeal or inform him of his appeal rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 8

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________

    No. 96-1524

    CARLOS ALBERTO BERRIO-CALLEJAS,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Defendant, Appellee.

    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]


    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge,


    ___________
    Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Carlos Alberto Berrio-Callejas on brief pro se.


    ______________________________
    Guillermo Gil, United
    _____________
    Senior Litigation

    Counsel,

    States Attorney,
    and Nelson

    Jose A. Quiles-Espino
    ______________________

    Perez-Sosa, Assistant

    Uni

    __________________
    States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

    ____________________

    NOVEMBER 12, 1997


    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    Per Curiam

    In

    this appeal

    denial of his petition for a

    from the

    district court's

    summ

    writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

    2255, Carlos Berrio-Callejas asserts, inter alia, that the court er


    _____ ____

    in implicitly

    concluding that the

    petition "and records of

    the c

    conclusively show that [he] is entitled to no relief," see id., on


    ___ ___

    claim

    of ineffective assistance of counsel.

    contends that the record does

    Specifically, petitio

    not conclusively refute his

    allegat

    that trial counsel failed to perfect his notice of appeal, despite

    instructions that she do

    17,

    23 (1st Cir.

    1992).

    so.

    We

    See Bonneau v. United States, 961 F


    ___ _______
    ______________

    agree.

    The

    court had

    no authority

    credit petitioner's

    counsel's letter over petitioner's,

    v.

    34

    United States,
    ______________

    F.3d

    443,

    445-46

    (7th Cir.

    cf. Casti
    ___ _____

    1994),

    as

    apparently did

    in resolving this

    United States,
    _____________

    917 F. Supp.

    addition,

    in

    suggests that

    petitioner's claim.

    We

    (1)

    125, 131-32 (D.

    the court's summary of

    Spanish)

    counsel for

    appointment under

    the

    Callejas
    ________

    Puerto Rico 1996).

    counsel's letter (which was writ

    letter

    does

    not, in

    fact,

    ref

    See id. at 131.


    ___ ___

    therefore vacate

    appoint

    issue against him, see


    ___

    and remand with instructions

    petitioner

    18 U.S.C.

    if

    he

    3006A(g); and

    that the co

    qualifies for

    (2) hold

    such

    an evidenti

    hearing as to whether, and when, petitioner instructed counsel to f

    a notice

    renew his

    of appeal,

    see U.S.C.
    ___

    alternative argument,

    counsel was constitutionally

    2255.

    Should petitioner

    made below but

    not on

    wish

    appeal, t

    ineffective in failing either to ask

    whether he wanted to appeal or to inform him of his appeal rights,

    Baker
    _____

    v. Kaiser, 929
    ______

    constitutional

    duties

    F.2d 1495, 1499

    along

    (10th Cir.

    these lines);

    but
    ___

    1991) (counsel

    see
    ___

    Castellanos
    ___________

    United States, 26 F.3d 717, 719-20 (7th Cir. 1994) (appearing to pl


    _____________

    onus on

    defendant to request

    an appeal); United States


    _____________

    v. Peak,
    ____

    F.2d

    39, 41-42

    entertain

    it

    (4th

    (if the

    Cir.

    1993) (similar),

    court

    resolves

    the

    the

    court should

    remanded

    issue

    agai

    petitioner) and make appropriate findings and rulings on it.1

    In light

    of how long

    this petition has

    should appoint counsel forthwith and endeavor

    hearing as soon as possible.

    Vacated and remanded.


    Vacated and remanded.

    been pending,

    the co

    to hold the evidenti

    ____________________

    1We do not now address the remaining issues raised by the petition,
    those issues can be raised on direct appeal

    should the district co

    reinstate petitioner's right to take such an appeal.


    F.2d

    at

    23.

    In the

    petitioner's right to

    event

    the district

    See Bonneau,
    ___ _______

    court does

    file a direct appeal, petitioner

    not reinst
    may renew

    appeal of the court's rulings on these issues on collateral review.

    You might also like