Andrew Martin v. United States, 889 F.3d 827

Background

Andrew Martin pleaded guilty in 2013 to murder-for-hire facilitation (18 U.S.C. §1958), conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1349), and unlawfully obtaining identifiable health information (42 U.S.C. §1320d-6). No plea agreement; the Government promised to move for a 3-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction if Martin continued to accept responsibility.
Before sentencing Martin filed a Rule 60(b) motion in related probate litigation that included factual statements inconsistent with his guilty-plea statement; the district court denied the acceptance reduction at sentencing and imposed 144 months’ imprisonment.
Martin filed a pro se §2255 petition claiming ineffective assistance: his criminal defense attorney, Thomarios, advised and assisted him in filing the 60(b) motion, instructed him to include language contradicting his plea, and assured him it would not affect his criminal case; Martin said he would not have filed the motion but for that advice and thus lost the 3-point reduction.
The Government opposed and submitted affidavits, billing records, and fee letters from defense counsel; counsel denied advising Martin to file or to use contradictory language but billing entries showed research of 60(b) motions and time spent on the civil matter.
The district court denied §2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding Martin not credible and concluding the criminal attorneys did not represent him in the civil case; Martin appealed and the Sixth Circuit granted a COA on the credibility/hearing issues.
The Sixth Circuit reversed: factual disputes about whether counsel advised the 60(b) filing were neither conclusively contradicted by the record nor inherently incredible, so the district court abused its discretion by refusing an evidentiary hearing; the court declined to reassign the case on remand.

Issues

Issue	Martin's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on Martin’s ineffective-assistance claim that counsel advised/assisted him in filing the Rule 60(b) civil motion which undercut acceptance-of-responsibility	Thomarios advised Martin to file the 60(b) motion, reviewed/edited it to include statements contradicting his plea, and assured him it would not affect sentencing; Martin produced affidavits and docket notes	The allegations are contradicted by the record and inherently incredible; sentencing record and counsel statements show no such advice, so no hearing was required	Reversed: Sixth Circuit held Martin met the light threshold for a hearing because factual dispute was not conclusively resolved by the record; remanded for an evidentiary hearing
Whether the case should be reassigned to a different judge on remand	District court prejudged credibility and may be unable to decide fairly on remand, so reassignment is warranted	Reassignment unnecessary absent evidence the judge cannot fairly revisit the matter; errors in characterizing evidence alone do not require reassignment	Denied: Court declined reassignment, finding no showing the judge cannot reconsider the matter with an open mind

Key Cases Cited

Huff v. United States, 734 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2013) (evidentiary-hearing standard for §2255 claims)
Campbell v. United States, 686 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2012) (evidentiary hearing required unless record conclusively shows no relief)
Turner v. United States, 183 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1999) (when factual dispute exists, hearing is required)
Arredondo v. United States, 178 F.3d 778 (6th Cir. 1999) (criteria for rejecting habeas allegations without hearing)
Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2007) (mere protestations not enough for a hearing; context matters)
Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (petitioner's self-serving affidavit may suffice in certain plea-withdrawal/ineffective-assistance contexts)
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (record often cannot resolve occurrences outside the courtroom)