Clayton v. Jones
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23597
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Clayton, a state prisoner, pled guilty in 1983 to second-degree murder and related offenses.
- He later claimed his counsel failed to follow repeated instructions to file an appeal after the guilty plea.
- A magistrate judge recommended habeas relief with a 120-day window to withdraw the plea, which the district court adopted.
- On appeal, the State contends the district court’s factual finding that Clayton asked for an appeal was clearly erroneous and argues for an out-of-time direct appeal as the remedy.
- The court reversed, holding Clayton received ineffective assistance of counsel and remanding for the district court to explain why withdrawing the plea was the proper remedy rather than granting an out-of-time appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there ineffective assistance for failing to file an appeal? | Clayton asked Hoch to appeal repeatedly. | Hoch did not clearly fail to file an appeal. | Yes; Clayton received ineffective assistance. |
| What is the proper remedy for ineffective assistance on appeal? | Remedy should cure the prejudice from denied appeal. | Remedy could be an out-of-time appeal; district court did not explain withdrawal as remedy. | Remand to justify the chosen remedy; not limited to out-of-time appeal. |
| Did the district court properly support its chosen remedy with findings? | Remedy was tailored to the injury. | No explanation in the record for withdrawal remedy. | Remand required for district court to explain its rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Ortega v. United States, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel's failure to file a requested appeal is professionally unreasonable)
- Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (1999) (defendant entitled to new appeal if counsel disregards instructions to appeal)
- Hickman v. Spears, 160 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 1998) (appeal as of right; effective assistance during appeal)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (right to appeal; counsel's duties in appellate process)
- Abels v. Kaiser, 913 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1990) (counsel must file and pursue appeal as instructed)
- Randall v. State, 861 P.2d 314 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993) (withdrawal application and evidentiary hearing required for appeal)
- Romero v. Tansy, 46 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 1995) (consideration of effective appellate counsel claims)
- Baker v. Kaiser, 929 F.2d 1495 (10th Cir. 1991) (remedies for denial of right to appeal; not limited to new appeal)
- Hannon v. Maschner, 981 F.2d 1142 (10th Cir. 1992) (extreme remedies appropriate in egregious delay cases)