Franchie Farmer v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15229

In 2008 Franchie Farmer was convicted (jury trial) of armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)); she was the getaway driver and convicted under an accomplice (aiding-and-abetting) theory.
At trial co-defendants Wrice and Anderson testified Farmer planned the robbery, wrote the demand note (which mentioned a gun twice), and had discussed using guns; handwriting and phone-call evidence supported their testimony.
Farmer’s trial predated Rosemond v. United States, so the § 924(c) jury instruction did not require proof of the accomplice’s advance knowledge of a planned gun use; Farmer did not object at trial or on direct appeal.
After Rosemond (2014) Farmer filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance for failure to object to the § 924(c) instruction; the district court denied relief, concluding no prejudice given the evidence of advance knowledge.
On appeal Farmer reframed the claim as a direct challenge to the § 924(c) instruction; she procedural-defaulted that direct claim and must show cause and actual prejudice to obtain collateral relief.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Rosemond applies retroactively but Farmer failed to show actual prejudice because the record contained ample evidence she had advance knowledge guns would be used.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Rosemond’s advance-knowledge requirement apply retroactively on collateral review?	Rosemond creates a new rule that should be applied to her case.	The rule is procedural and should not apply retroactively.	Rosemond is substantive for § 924(c) accomplice liability and applies retroactively.
Is Farmer’s direct challenge to the § 924(c) jury instruction procedurally defaulted?	Farmer seeks to raise the Rosemond error directly now.	Farmer failed to raise the claim at trial or on direct appeal; it’s defaulted.	The direct challenge is defaulted; Farmer must show cause and actual prejudice.
Can Farmer show actual prejudice from the erroneous § 924(c) instruction under Frady?	The error infected her trial and requires vacatur of the § 924(c) conviction.	The record contains overwhelming evidence of Farmer’s advance knowledge of gun use, so any error was harmless.	No actual prejudice shown; the instructional error was harmless given the evidence.
Was Farmer entitled to collateral relief based on counsel’s failure to object (ineffective assistance) under § 2255?	Counsel’s failure to object to the pre-Rosemond instruction was constitutionally ineffective.	Even if deficient, Farmer cannot show prejudice because evidence proved advance knowledge.	District court correctly denied § 2255 relief for ineffective assistance due to lack of prejudice.

Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (requires accomplice to have advance knowledge of planned gun use for § 924(c) liability)
Montana v. Cross, 829 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2016) (held Rosemond is retroactive on collateral review)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishes substantive from procedural new rules for retroactivity)
United States v. Daniels, 370 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2004) (pre-Rosemond standard allowing knowledge before or during crime)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (U.S. 1982) (cause-and-prejudice standard to excuse procedural default)
Mankarious v. United States, 282 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2002) (harmlessness and grave doubt discussion for procedural default/actual prejudice)