FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 28, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-8011
v. (D. Wyo.)
RONALD ENNIS, (D.C. Nos. 1:12-CV-00028-NDF and
2:10-CR-00118-NDF-2)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before TYMKOVICH, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner and appellant Ronald Ennis seeks a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) to enable him to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. Having concluded that he fails to meet
the standard for the issuance of a COA, we deny him a COA and dismiss this
matter.
BACKGROUND
The following are the relevant facts, as stated in the various orders of the
district court. On May 10, 2010, a grand jury returned two drug trafficking
indictments against Mr. Ennis and others. The indictment in Case No.
10-CR-118-D (“Indictment 118”) alleged that Mr. Ennis was involved in a drug
trafficking enterprise with thirteen other individuals from January 2009 through
May 10, 2010. Specifically, this indictment charged Mr. Ennis with conspiracy to
traffic in methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A); distribution or possession of methamphetamine with intent to
distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B); and use
of a telephone to facilitate a drug felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). The
other indictment, involving Case No. 10-CR-134-D (“Indictment 134”), charged
Mr. Ennis with conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine between October 1, 2009,
and November 19, 2009, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)
and with unlawful distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B).
-2-
The indictments alleged that the two primary other individuals involved
with Mr. Ennis were Steve Bernal and William Breeden. Mr. Ennis assisted
Mr. Bernal and Mr. Breeden by traveling to Utah on multiple occasions to pick up
methamphetamine from their sources. Mr. Ennis, in turn, had other individuals
selling methamphetamine on his behalf. Apparently, the total amount of
methamphetamine attributed to Mr. Ennis was more than 900 grams.
On September 16, 2012, Mr. Ennis signed a plea agreement in both cases.
Mr. Ennis agreed to plead guilty to count one of Indictment 118 (conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine), and to
count three of Indictment 134 (distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and
abetting). Mr. Ennis also agreed to forfeit $15,000. In return, the government
agreed to dismiss all remaining counts and to recommend a sentence at the low
end of the advisory United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual
(“USSG”).
At his change of plea hearing, the district court placed Mr. Ennis under
oath and engaged in the colloquy required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Mr. Ennis
stated that he had an adequate opportunity to discuss the charges with his attorney
and that his attorney had answered all of his questions regarding those charges
and had discussed possible defenses with him. Mr. Ennis also stated that he was
satisfied with the representation he had received from his counsel.
-3-
The court then explained the penalties which could result from a guilty
plea, and Mr. Ennis indicated his understanding, including his awareness of the
mandatory minimum penalty of ten years for one of the counts. The court
explained the Guidelines and the United States Probation Office’s assigned
officer indicated her belief that Mr. Ennis’s total adjusted offense level would be
37 with a criminal history category of III. This would result in an advisory
sentencing range of 262 to 327 months. Mr. Ennis indicated his awareness of all
of this information before he pled guilty.
The court next explained the elements of the crimes; Mr. Ennis indicated
his understanding of those. He then described what he actually did with respect
to each count. Mr. Ennis subsequently pled guilty to each count. The plea
agreement did not contain any provision waiving Mr. Ennis’s right to appeal his
sentence.
In preparation for sentencing under the Guidelines, the probation office
prepared a presentence report (“PSR”), which used relevant conduct to establish a
base offense level of 34. After reducing the offense level for acceptance of
responsibility, the PSR calculated Mr. Ennis’s total offense level as 31, which,
with a criminal history of V, yielded an advisory Guidelines sentencing range of
168 to 210 months.
At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Ennis argued that the court should consider
a sentence below the minimum of 168 months. As grounds for this downward
-4-
variance, Mr. Ennis argued his age (66 at the time) and his severe addiction to
methamphetamine. After listening to Mr. Ennis, the court varied downward three
levels to an offense level of 28 with an advisory range of 132 to 162 months. The
court then sentenced Mr. Ennis to 132 months’ imprisonment.
Mr. Ennis subsequently filed this § 2255 motion. 1 On September 19, 2012,
the court entered an order partially denying the motion, appointing counsel for
Mr. Ennis and setting an evidentiary hearing on the single remaining issue of
whether he had asked his counsel to file an appeal and whether his counsel had
failed to file that appeal. After conducting the evidentiary hearing, at which
Mr. Ennis and his attorney testified, the district court issued its order denying
Mr. Ennis’s § 2255 motion on the remaining issue of ineffectiveness of counsel in
connection with an appeal. The court made the following findings:
Through the presentation of evidence in this case, it is
undisputed that Petitioner, despite contrary statements in his filings,
never asked his trial counsel to file an appeal. Therefore, the issue
before the Court is whether Petitioner’s counsel was constitutionally
ineffective for failing to consult with him regarding an appeal. After
hearing all the evidence, the Court finds that Petitioner failed to
establish that either a rational defendant would want to appeal, or
Petitioner reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested
in appealing. There is nothing in the record to indicate nonfrivolous
1
Apparently, Mr. Ennis himself filed a direct appeal, which our court
dismissed as untimely on March 1, 2012. But, in light of Mr. Ennis’s claim that
he had asked his attorney to file an appeal, we remanded the matter to the district
court to determine whether Mr. Ennis’s notice of appeal should be construed as a
§ 2255 motion. In any event, Mr. Ennis filed an actual § 2255 motion which
included the claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to file a direct
appeal.
-5-
grounds for appeal, so the Court’s focus is on whether Petitioner
reasonably indicated to his counsel that he was interested in
appealing.
While Petitioner is not required to ask for an appeal, there
needs to be something in the record to establish that Petitioner
reasonably indicated to his counsel that he was interested in
appealing. At the hearing, there was no testimony from Petitioner
demonstrating that he was interested in appealing. The fact that
Petitioner raised concerns along the way regarding quantity and
criminal history is not sufficient. In this case, Petitioner claims that
at sentencing he stood there in shock, but there is a difference of
opinion about whether that occurred. Petitioner’s counsel did not
perceive Petitioner as being in shock. Petitioner received a
significantly lower sentence than was indicated at his change of plea
hearing. At his change of plea hearing his sentence was calculated at
262-327 months and Petitioner received a sentence of 132 months.
In reviewing the record, there was no time during the change of plea
hearing or the sentencing hearing that Petitioner indicated any desire
to pursue an appeal in this case. Additionally, Petitioner did not
contact his counsel regarding an appeal for several months after
sentencing. The record in this case is void of any evidence to
establish that Petitioner’s trial counsel should have been aware of
Petitioner’s desire for an appeal. For all these reasons, the Court
finds that Petitioner is not entitled to the restoration of this appeal
right.
Order at 7-9. Thus, after denying his § 2255 motion in its entirety, the district
court denied Mr. Ennis a COA, finding he had failed to make a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Mr. Ennis asks us for a COA to enable him to appeal this latest denial.
-6-
DISCUSSION
A COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to this court’s review of a § 2255
motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see Allen v. Zavaras, 568 F.3d 1197, 1199
(10th Cir. 2009) (citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)). “We
will issue a COA only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” Allen, 568 F.3d at 1199 (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2)). In order to make such a showing, a prisoner must demonstrate
“that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Although he need not demonstrate that his appeal will succeed to be
entitled to a COA, a prisoner “must prove something more than absence of
frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338
(quotations omitted). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. English v. Cody, 241 F.3d 1279, 1282
(10th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Whalen, 976 F.2d 1346, 1347 (10th
Cir. 1992) (”We review the district court’s fact findings in a section 2255
proceeding under the clearly erroneous standard, although the performance and
prejudice prongs under Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)] involve
mixed questions of law and fact which we review de novo.”).
-7-
The sole issue facing us is whether Mr. Ennis’s defense counsel provided
“constitutionally ineffective representation when he failed to consult with his
client about taking a direct appeal from a sentence of 132 months[.]” Appellant’s
Op. Br. at 2.
To prove that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, a defendant must
show (1) that counsel’s representation was deficient because it fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2)
that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. See Strickland,
466 U.S. at 687-88. A defendant receives ineffective assistance of counsel if his
attorney disregards a specific instruction to take an appeal from a conviction or
sentence. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000). Indeed, “a lawyer
who fails to follow a defendant’s express instructions to file a notice of appeal
acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” United States v. Garrett,
402 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Roe, 528 U.S. at 477-78). In that
situation, a defendant is entitled to a belated appeal without showing that the
appeal would have merit. Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23, 28 (1999);
United States v. Snitz, 342 F.3d 1154, 1155, 1159 (10th Cir. 2003). On the other
hand, “a defendant who explicitly tells his attorney not to file an appeal plainly
cannot later complain that, by following his instructions, his counsel performed
deficiently.” Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 477.
-8-
Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Mr. Ennis
never asked his trial counsel to file an appeal; but, he never asked his attorney not
to file an appeal, either. Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Thus, to
decide whether Mr. Ennis’s trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness, we (as did the district court) apply the test used “[i]n
those cases where the defendant neither instructs counsel to file an appeal nor
asks that an appeal not be taken. . . .” Id. at 478. We first ask:
whether counsel in fact consulted with the defendant about an appeal.
We employ the term “consult” to convey a specific meaning–advising
the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an
appeal, and making a reasonable effort to discover the defendant’s
wishes. If counsel has consulted with the defendant, the question of
deficient performance is easily answered: Counsel performs in a
professionally unreasonable manner only by failing to follow the
defendant’s express instructions with respect to an appeal.
Id. (citation omitted). The district court found, correctly, that Mr. Ennis’s
counsel had not consulted with Mr. Ennis.
Accordingly, when counsel has not consulted with the defendant, a court
must evaluate whether counsel had a duty to so consult, “tak[ing] into account all
the information counsel knew or should have known.” Id. at 480. The
constitutionally imposed duty to consult arises “when there is a reason to think
either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because
there are non-frivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant
reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.” Id.
-9-
The district court determined that there were no nonfrivolous grounds on
which Mr. Ennis could appeal; 2 therefore, the court was satisfied that no “rational
defendant would want to appeal.” Id. We note that the Supreme Court has stated
that “a highly relevant factor in this inquiry [of whether a rational defendant
would have wanted to appeal] will be whether the conviction follows a trial or a
guilty plea, both because a guilty plea reduces the scope of potentially appealable
issues and because such a plea may indicate that the defendant seeks an end to
judicial proceedings.” Id. Mr. Ennis, of course, did plead guilty.
Nonetheless, “[e]ven in cases when the defendant pleads guilty, the court
must consider such factors as whether the defendant received the sentence
bargained for as part of the plea and whether the plea expressly reserved or
waived some or all appeal rights.” Id. Here, Mr. Ennis received a lower sentence
than expected, and therefore got a better bargain. As another panel of our court
said (with which we agree), “[t]he fact that he pled guilty and received the
sentence bargained for weighs against an obligation on the part of his attorney to
consult with him regarding an appeal.” Pahcheka v. Ward, 143 Fed. Appx. 128,
133 (10th Cir. Aug. 2005) (unpublished).
2
As indicated, the district court rejected Mr. Ennis’s remaining arguments
for issuance of a § 2255 petition before conducting the evidentiary hearing on
counsel’s effectiveness. We fully agree with the district court’s dismissal of
those other arguments as meritless. They certainly do not present grounds for
issuance of a COA.
-10-
The district court accordingly turned to the final inquiry–“whether
Petitioner reasonably indicated to his counsel that he was interested in appealing.”
Order at 8. With respect to this issue, the court noted that Mr. Ennis claimed to
have stood “in shock” at his sentencing. The court stated that there “is a
difference of opinion about whether that occurred. Petitioner’s counsel did not
perceive Petitioner as being in shock.” Id. Furthermore, the court noted the
“significantly lower sentence [Mr. Ennis received] than was indicated at his
change of plea hearing.” Id. The court also specifically found, after “reviewing
the record, that there was no time during the change of plea hearing or the
sentencing hearing that Petitioner indicated any desire to pursue an appeal in this
case. Additionally, Petitioner did not contact his counsel regarding an appeal for
several months after sentencing.” Id. at 8-9. We find no error or room for
disagreement in the court’s review of the record in this case or its analysis. In
short, we fully agree that “[t]he record . . . is void of any evidence to establish
that Petitioner’s counsel should have been aware of Petitioner’s desire for an
appeal.” Id. at 9.
If a defendant establishes that counsel had a duty to consult with him and
failed to do so, we would then consider the second part of the Strickland
test–prejudice stemming from counsel’s deficient performance. Flores-Ortega,
528 U.S. at 481. To demonstrate prejudice when counsel has failed to consult
with a defendant regarding an appeal, “a defendant must demonstrate that there is
-11-
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient failure to consult with
him about an appeal, he would timely have appealed.” Id. at 484. Because we
have found no grounds for issuance of a COA on the question of deficient
performance, we need not consider the second Strickland step of prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY a COA and DISMISS this matter.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-12-