Case: 14-14399 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14399
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:13-cv-01342-VMC-AEP,
8:10-cr-00305-T-33-AEP
ROBERT MARTIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 25, 2016)
Case: 14-14399 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Martin, proceeding pro se,1 challenges the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his convictions for distribution of
methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Martin was
granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the following issue: Whether the
district court erred in denying Martin’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
without holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of the advice given
to Martin by counsel with regard to whether to withdraw his first guilty plea. After
review, 2 we affirm the district court.
A movant under § 2255 is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the district
court “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show
that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). A district court
does not need to hold an evidentiary hearing where the movant’s allegations “are
affirmatively contradicted by the record, or the claims are patently frivolous . . . .”
Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2002).
1
A habeas petition filed by a pro se litigant should be construed more liberally than one
filed by an attorney. Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 2002).
2
We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing in a § 2255 proceeding for an abuse of
discretion. Aron, 291 F.3d at 714 n.5. Whether counsel was ineffective is a mixed question of
law and fact and is reviewed de novo. Thompson v. United States, 504 F.3d 1203, 1206 n.4 (11th
Cir. 2007).
2
Case: 14-14399 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 3 of 4
To make a successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant
must show that: (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient
performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). Review of counsel’s conduct is highly deferential, and there is a strong
presumption that counsel’s performance falls within the wide range of professional
competence. Id. at 689. In Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v.
Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), the Supreme Court held the Sixth Amendment
right to effective assistance of counsel extends to plea negotiations. Frye, 132 S.
Ct. at 1404-08; Lafler, 132 S. Ct. at 1384. Thus, criminal defendants are “entitled
to the effective assistance of competent counsel” during plea negotiations. Lafler,
132 S. Ct. at 1384.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an
evidentiary hearing because Martin’s claim of ineffective assistance is
affirmatively contradicted by the record. The record shows that Martin knew that
he was taking a risk by rejecting the Government’s first plea offer and litigating his
motion to suppress. The transcript from the change of plea hearing on January 4,
2011, shows that Martin knew the Government would withdraw the first plea offer
if he litigated his motion to suppress, that his motion to suppress might not
succeed, and that, if the motion was unsuccessful, he faced conviction for more
offenses and a longer sentence. The prosecutor, the magistrate judge, and Martin’s
3
Case: 14-14399 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 4 of 4
counsel each communicated with Martin such that Martin was aware he was taking
a risk by pursuing his motion to suppress. Martin has not shown his counsel’s
allegedly deficient performance led him to reject the initial plea agreement.
Further, even if Martin’s decision to reject the first plea offer was at his
counsel’s insistence, Martin has still failed to show deficient performance.
Pursuing a motion to suppress evidence based on the absence of the signature of
the judge approving the search warrant is the type of strategic choice that is
“virtually unchallengeable.” See Strickland, 104 S. Ct. at 2066. Martin cannot
show that “no competent counsel would have taken the action that his counsel did
take.” See Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir. 2000) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.
4