[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 03, 2002
No. 00-11368 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 99-01265-3:CV-J-20B
RON C. BROADWATER,
a.k.a. Ronald Hampton,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(June 3, 2002)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-appellant Ronald Broadwater (“Broadwater”) filed a pro se 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion on December 28, 1999 challenging his conviction and sentence
for possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. Broadwater alleged six
substantive ineffective assistance of counsel errors. On January 3, 2000, the District
Court summarily denied the motion in a one-sentence order stating, “[t]he Defendant’s
Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct His Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(Doc. No. 168, filed December 28, 1999) is DENIED.” (No. 99-1265-Civ-J-20B).
We vacate and remand so that the district court can provide further explanation
of its ruling in order to “provide this court with a sufficient basis for review.” Hart
v. United States, 565 F.2d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1978) (remanding a summary denial of
§ 2255 motion due to insufficient basis for review).
Broadwater asserted in his § 2255 motion that his counsel was ineffective in (1)
failing to challenge at sentencing or on appeal the district court’s drug quantity
finding; (2) failing to challenge at sentencing or on appeal the district court’s firearm
possession finding; (3) failing to move for a judgment of acquittal or challenge on
appeal the sufficiency of the evidence; (4) failing to object to or challenge on appeal
the admission of drugs and the firearm found at the automobile crash site; (5) failing
to object to, impeach, or challenge on appeal a government witness’s purportedly
inconsistent prior testimony; and (6) failing to raise at trial or challenge on appeal
claims that (a) prosecution was barred by the previous dismissal of charges in a prior
2
indictment, and (b) Broadwater was unfairly prejudiced at trial by the introduction of
evidence of his alleged use of the alias “Ronald Hampton.”
Under Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases , Rule 4 (b), a district court faced
with a § 2255 motion may make an order for its summary dismissal “[i]f it plainly
appears from the face of the motion and any annexed exhibits and the prior
proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief . . . .” 28 U.S.C. foll.
§ 2255. In view of the number of allegations and the size of the record here, it is not
readily apparent that this is such a case. Without an answer or other pleading from the
United States Attorney which might have directed the district court to the relevant
parts of the record, even a complete reading of the record on appellate review would
not reveal upon what portions of the record the district court relied. The district
court’s order gives us no guide as to its rulings on any of the issues, or to the findings
or conclusions of law which explain the bases for the district court’s denial of
Broadwater’s § 2255 motion.
This does not mean that a fuller explanation is required in every summary
denial of a § 2255 motion. For example, there are undoubtedly simple § 2255 motions
which obviously have no merit because the allegations, even if true, would not afford
relief. Expeditious handling of other § 2255 motions may justify relief without
3
explanation because a simple review of a short record shows that there is no factual
basis for the allegations.
Where, as here, however, there may potentially be some merit to the allegations
if supported by the record, and the record consists of voluminous files and transcripts,
an adequate appellate review of the basis for the district court’s decision requires
something more than a mere summary denial of the § 2255 motion by the district
court.
As we said in Hart: “[t]his does not mean that an evidentiary hearing must now
be held, however. The district court, by its own action or by requiring a response from
the government, may be able to gain sufficient information to dispose of appellant’s
allegations without a hearing.” Hart, 565 F.2d at 362. We are mindful of the fact that
the same judge who denied this § 2255 motion also conducted the several-day trial
of the case in 1997, and that some situations may be resolved by the district court’s
personal knowledge or recollection. Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495
(1962). When that is not revealed in the order, however, there is no way for an
appellate court to review the accuracy of that recollection or whether that is sufficient
upon which to base a denial of relief. Here, we cannot tell whether the district court’s
ruling was premised upon its review of the files, records, and transcripts of the
proceedings, or in whole or in part upon its own recollection of events.
4
VACATED AND REMANDED
5