Darron Howard v. United States
485 F. App'x 125
6th Cir.2012Background
- Howard challenges his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to criminal-history points, including juvenile offenses, at sentencing and on direct appeal.
- District court denied the §2255 motion as procedurally defaulted without an evidentiary hearing.
- PSR calculated Howard’s criminal history at category VI (thirteen points) with three juvenile offenses contributing.
- Two juvenile offenses (paragraphs 38 and 42) were excluded at sentencing; paragraph 43’s misdemeanor (giving false information) was at issue but its treatment was unclear.
- Howard filed a direct appeal and then a pro se §2255 motion; the district court’s denial prompted this appeal.
- Court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine the factual basis of the disputed juvenile disposition and related sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing | Howard argues record is incomplete on the juvenile disposition facts. | Howard's claims lacked merits or defaulted; no need for a hearing. | Yes, district court abused discretion; remand for evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to paragraph 38 (Glen Mills) as confinement or diversionary disposition | Paragraph 38’s Glen Mills placement may be confinement/diversionary, not merely a school/ward record. | Record insufficient to show error; no prejudice shown. | Remand for an evidentiary determination on whether this sentence was confinement or diversionary. |
| Whether paragraph 43 (false information to police) should be excluded under §4A1.2(c)(1) | Misconduct should not be counted absent probation/imprisonment or similarity to instant offense; record uncertain. | Glen Mills stay and probation history could render paragraph 43 countable. | Remand to resolve whether paragraph 43 was properly counted. |
| Whether Howard preserved the argument on paragraph 43 despite not citing §4A1.2(c)(1) on appeal | Pro se motion argued failure to object to paragraph 43 inclusion. | Rule; only some provisions cited on appeal. | Preserved; argument not waived; court may address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court 2003) (ineffective assistance claims may be raised on collateral review)
- Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2007) (habeas court must hold evidentiary hearing on disputed facts in §2255)
- United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459 (6th Cir.) (Massaro framework followed for §2255 proceedings)
- United States v. Hanley, 906 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir. 1990) (confinement under juvenile sentence defined for §4A1.2(d)(2))
- United States v. Williams, 176 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 1999) (determines when juvenile placement constitutes confinement)
- United States v. DiPina, 178 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999) (remand when juvenile disposition unclear to determine diversionary status)