Akitoye v. United States

USCA1 Opinion









December 27, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




____________________


No. 93-1217

ADEGBOYEGA AKITOYE,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Adegboyega Akitoye on brief pro se.
__________________
Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran and
______________ ___________________
James H. Leavey, Assistant United States Attorneys, on brief for
________________
appellee.


____________________


____________________
















Per Curiam. Appellant Adegboyega Akitoye was
___________

convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with the

intent to distribute heroin. We affirmed his conviction on

direct appeal. See United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221
___ ______________ _______

(1st Cir. 1991). He then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.

2255 to vacate his sentence. In the motion, appellant raised

two related grounds: (1) his conviction for conspiracy was

obtained by the use of evidence not relevant to him; and (2)

there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of

possession with the intent to distribute heroin. On appeal,

appellant argues that the evidence was not sufficient as to

the existence of a conspiracy and that his lawyer provided

ineffective assistance by failing to raise the sufficiency of

the evidence claim on direct appeal.1

Issues not pursued on direct appeal are subject to

the cause and prejudice standard under United States v.
______________

Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982). See Suveges v. United
_____ ___ _______ ______

States, 7 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1993) (failure of 2255
______

movant to object at trial to enhanced term of supervised

release and to appeal sentence "in the first instance,"




____________________

1. Appellant also raises an argument concerning the trial
court's denial of the jury's request to have the testimony of
three witnesses read to it. However, appellant failed to
present this ground when he brought his 2255 petition in
the district court. "[A]n issue not presented to the trial
court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."
Nogueira v. United States, 683 F.2d 576, 580 (1st Cir. 1982).
________ _____________
In all events, this ground has already been considered and
rejected on direct appeal. See Akitoye, 923 F.2d at 225-27.
___ _______















constituted procedural default; movant therefore must show

cause and prejudice to obtain collateral relief); Ford v.
____

United States, 983 F.2d 897, 898 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)
_____________

(defendant was procedurally barred, absent a showing of cause

and prejudice, from raising issues in a 2255 motion which

he had failed to pursue on direct appeal). Thus, appellant

is barred from raising the claim concerning the sufficiency

of the evidence unless he can show cause and prejudice. He

cannot establish `cause' here, except, perhaps, by resort to

the principle that cause can be established by ineffective

assistance of counsel. Suveges, 7 F.3d at 10; Ford, 983 F.2d
_______

at 898-99.

To show ineffectiveness, appellant must demonstrate

"that counsel fell below the applicable standard for

performance, defined by what the lawyer knew, or should have

known, at the time of his/her tactical choices . . . ." See
___

United States v. Fisher, 3 F.3d 456, 463 (1st Cir. 1993).
_____________ ______

Here, what appellant's attorney knew at the time he filed the

appeal was that we had upheld, on direct appeal, the trial

judge's finding that appellant had obstructed justice by

perjuring himself at trial. The trial judge, in enhancing

appellant's base offense level, had described appellant's

testimony as a "self-serving `cock and bull story.'" 923

F.2d at 228. Indeed, in referring to appellant's attempt to

cast his co-conspirator as the "villain" by disclaiming any



-3-















knowledge of the drugs or marked money found in his

(appellant's) apartment, we stated: "Viewed as a seamless

web, the record stalwartly supports the conclusion that

Akitoye fabricated a fairy tale in a lame effort to avoid the

condign consequences of his criminal conduct." Id at 229.
__

Given this scenario, it would be difficult to describe

counsel's decision not to contest the sufficiency of the

evidence as anything other than a tactical decision well

within what constitutes "reasonable professional assistance."

See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984).
___ __________ __________

Nor do we think that appellant has established the

second prong of Strickland -- that he was prejudiced by the
__________

failure of his attorney to present this issue on direct

appeal. See id. at 687. We have carefully reviewed the
___ ___

record and find that there was sufficient evidence, beyond a

reasonable doubt, to support the jury's conclusion that

appellant had engaged in a conspiracy to distribute heroin

and possession with the intent to distribute it. See, e.g.,
___ ____

United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33, 39-40 (1st Cir. 1991).
_____________ _____

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed.
________











-4-