Berry v. United States
884 F. Supp. 2d 453
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Petitioner Sharone Jermaine Berry moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence.
- Petitioner challenges four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including trial and sentencing representations.
- Trial involved possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, identity theft, and related counts; sentencing treated him as a career offender.
- Court suppressed suppression-related issues previously and later resentenced after Flores-Figueroa, with counts adjusted.
- Lafler v. Cooper and related retroactivity questions were raised post-trial but found inapplicable under Teague.
- Court denied the § 2255 motion without a hearing and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to the judge's trial questioning | Berry alleges improper judicial questioning violated rights. | Kimball's performance was not deficient and any prejudice was minimal. | No prejudice; questions cured by instruction and trial fairness remained intact. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not requesting a lesser-included offense instruction | A lesser offense could have avoided a conviction for distribution. | Evidence supported distribution with intent; a lesser instruction would be frivolous. | No ineffective assistance; evidence supported the charge and defense theory contradicted a lesser offense. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not presenting mental capacity mitigation at sentencing | Defendant had ADHD, adjustment disorder, and bipolar issues needing evaluation. | PSR and counsel papers already addressed mental health; no significantly reduced capacity under § 5K2.13 shown. | No deficient performance; record shows mental-health considerations were adequately addressed. |
| Does Lafler v. Cooper apply retroactively to § 2255 claims | Lafler creates a new rule allowing relief for bad plea advice on collateral review. | Teague bars Lafler-based claims absent retroactivity; rule not clearly retroactive here. | Retroactivity barred under Teague; Lafler claim not cognizable on collateral review; merits waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1988) (standard for instruction on recognized defenses)
- Goossens, 84 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 1996) (mental capacity considerations narrowly construed under § 5K2.13)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity of new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (ineffective assistance when trial counsel's advice leads to trial instead of a plea)
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (plea-related? (contextual to Lafler/Frye discussions))
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (defendant's counsel must advise on deportation consequences)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (basis for evaluating guilty-plea decisions and counsel effectiveness)
- Diaz v. United States, 930 F.2d 832 (11th Cir. 1991) (after-the-fact affidavits insufficient to prove but-for prejudice)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (definition of identity-theft elements; retroactivity implications discussed)