Dwight Thomas v. United States
737 F.3d 1202
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- 2004: Federal indictment charging Thomas with two counts of distributing/possessing cocaine base; warrant issued with wrong birth date so Thomas was not arrested on that indictment until Feb 2008 after a separate arrest.
- 2008: Thomas arraigned, pled not guilty; Government filed a §851 information alleging prior felony drug convictions, exposing Thomas to a mandatory life term on Count 2.
- Jury convicted on both counts; district court sentenced Thomas to 240 months (Count 1) and life (Count 2) concurrently; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Thomas filed a §2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to move to dismiss the 2004 indictment on Sixth Amendment speedy-trial grounds; trial counsel submitted an affidavit stating he had discussed and decided not to move to dismiss for strategic reasons.
- District court denied §2255 without an evidentiary hearing, finding counsel’s performance reasonable based on the record (including counsel’s affidavit); denied a subsequent Rule 60(b) motion. This appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on the §2255 ineffective-assistance claim was required | Thomas: counsel failed to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation and did not consult him; factual dispute requires a hearing | Gov./District: record (including counsel affidavit) shows counsel made a tactical decision not to move to dismiss; no hearing required | No hearing required; claim contradicted by record and counsel’s decision was a tactical choice |
| Whether failure to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation was per se a client decision requiring consultation | Thomas: decision to move to dismiss implicates fundamental rights and required client input | Gov.: decision to move to dismiss is tactical and reserved to counsel, not one of Jones’s fundamental choices | Decision to move to dismiss for speedy-trial grounds is a tactical decision for counsel, not a Jones fundamental decision |
| Whether counsel’s omission was deficient under Strickland | Thomas: counsel’s omission was unreasonable and resulted from lack of investigation/consultation | Gov.: counsel investigated and reasonably chose strategy (compare 2004 vs. 2008 evidence and plea consequences) | Counsel’s performance fell within objectively reasonable strategic choices; no deficiency established |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Rule 60(b) relief by considering counsel’s affidavit | Thomas: affidavit should not be treated as part of the record for credibility resolution | Gov.: Rules Governing §2255 permit affidavits (Rules 7 and 8); district court properly considered it | Denial of Rule 60(b) affirmed; use of counsel affidavit was proper under the §2255 rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance test of deficient performance and prejudice)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy-trial claim requires multi-factor balancing rather than automatic dismissal)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (identifies defendant’s fundamental choices reserved to the client)
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (discussing counsel’s tactical decisionmaking and client consultation)
- Kingsberry v. United States, 202 F.3d 1030 (affidavits may be considered in §2255 proceedings under subsequent rules)
- United States v. Thomas, 593 F.3d 752 (prior appellate decision affirming convictions and sentences)