Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    United States v. Armond Wright, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a §2255 motion filed by Armond Rashawn Wright claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Wright claimed that he directed his counsel to file a notice of appeal but counsel failed to do so. The district court denied Wright's motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order, finding that an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the credibility issue between Wright's and counsel's conflicting affidavits regarding whether Wright directed an appeal be filed. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Armond Wright, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    17 views3 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a §2255 motion filed by Armond Rashawn Wright claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Wright claimed that he directed his counsel to file a notice of appeal but counsel failed to do so. The district court denied Wright's motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order, finding that an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the credibility issue between Wright's and counsel's conflicting affidavits regarding whether Wright directed an appeal be filed. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-08-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7468

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a §2255 motion filed by Armond Rashawn Wright claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Wright claimed that he directed his counsel to file a notice of appeal but counsel failed to do so. The district court denied Wright's motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order, finding that an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the credibility issue between Wright's and counsel's conflicting affidavits regarding whether Wright directed an appeal be filed. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    17 views3 pages

    United States v. Armond Wright, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a §2255 motion filed by Armond Rashawn Wright claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Wright claimed that he directed his counsel to file a notice of appeal but counsel failed to do so. The district court denied Wright's motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order, finding that an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve the credibility issue between Wright's and counsel's conflicting affidavits regarding whether Wright directed an appeal be filed. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7468

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ARMOND RASHAWN WRIGHT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
    District Judge. (2:04-cr-00618-PMD-1; 2:11-cv-70092-PMD)

    Submitted:

    July 25, 2013

    Decided:

    August 12, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Armond Rashawn Wright,


    Assistant United States
    for Appellee.

    Appellant Pro Se.


    Attorney, Charleston,

    Sean Kittrell,
    South Carolina,

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Armond Rashawn Wright appeals the denial of his 28
    U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion.

    We previously granted

    a certificate of appealability on Wrights claim that counsel


    was ineffective in failing to note an appeal as directed.

    After

    additional briefing, we vacate the district courts order and


    remand for further proceedings.
    In
    explicitly

    his

    2255

    requested

    that

    motion,
    counsel

    Wright
    file

    claimed
    notice

    of

    that

    he

    appeal.

    Wright presented an affidavit to this effect, as well as an


    affidavit from his grandmother attesting that Wright, in her
    presence,

    requested

    the

    filing

    of

    notice

    of

    appeal.

    The

    Government presented an affidavit from counsel attesting that


    Wright never requested that a notice of appeal be filed.
    In United States v. Peak, 992 F.2d 39, 41-42 (4th Cir.
    1993), this court held that counsels failure to file a notice
    of appeal as directed constitutes per se ineffective assistance.
    Under 28 U.S.C.A. 2255(b), unless the pleadings, files, and
    records conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to
    relief, the district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing.
    United States v. Witherspoon, 231 F.3d 923, 925-27 (4th Cir.
    2000).

    While whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary is

    generally left to the sound discretion of the district judge, we


    long

    ago

    recognized

    that

    there
    2

    remained

    category

    of

    petitions, usually involving credibility, that will require an


    evidentiary hearing in open court.

    Raines v. United States,

    423 F.2d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 1970).


    Wrights claim that counsel failed to file a notice of
    appeal when requested, if believed, states a colorable claim of
    ineffective assistance.

    Peak, 992 F.2d at 41-42.

    However, the

    district court denied Wrights motion after determining that his


    claim lacked credibility.

    In light of the parties conflicting

    affidavits, the record did not conclusively show that Wright was
    not entitled to relief.

    28 U.S.C.A. 2255(b); Raines, 423 F.2d

    at 530 (When the issue is one of credibility, resolution on the


    basis of affidavits can rarely be conclusive.).

    The district

    court therefore abused its discretion in concluding, without an


    evidentiary hearing, that Wright did not direct counsel to file
    a notice of appeal.
    Accordingly, we vacate the district courts order and
    remand for an evidentiary hearing.

    We deny Wrights motion for

    an extension of time to reply as moot, and deny his motions to


    appoint counsel and for a transcript at Government expense.
    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    VACATED AND REMANDED


    3

    You might also like