James L. Stillwell, Jr. v. United States
709 F. App'x 585
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Stillwell pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count 1) in exchange for dismissal of Counts 2 and 3; the plea agreement stated the facts underlying Counts 2 and 3 would be considered as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.
- The plea agreement included a broad appeal waiver (preserving only limited exceptions) and Stillwell initialed and signed the agreement; at the plea colloquy the court explained maximum sentence, sentencing discretion, and the limits of the waiver; Stillwell stated under oath he understood and had no questions.
- The PSR applied multiple enhancements (including for number of firearms, stolen firearm, and connection to another felony), producing a Guidelines range of 87–108 months; the district court overruled Stillwell’s objection to consideration of conduct from the dismissed counts and sentenced him to 108 months.
- Direct appeal was dismissed based on the appeal waiver. Stillwell then filed a § 2255 motion claiming counsel was ineffective for (a) advising that the appeal waiver would not bar appealing guideline calculations, and (b) advising that dismissed-count conduct would not be used at sentencing; counsel later admitted he gave incorrect advice in a letter.
- The magistrate judge and district court denied § 2255 relief and declined an evidentiary hearing, finding the plea agreement and plea colloquy independently informed Stillwell of the waiver and relevant-conduct consequences so he could not show prejudice from counsel’s alleged errors.
- This Court granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether the district court erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Stillwell’s claim that counsel was ineffective on the two advice points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s erroneous advice about the appeal waiver rendered the plea involuntary and warrants relief | Stillwell: counsel told me the waiver wouldn’t bar appealing Guidelines, so I pled guilty; but counsel was wrong, so my plea was not knowing | Govt/District: plea agreement and court colloquy independently informed Stillwell of the waiver and its limits, so no prejudice | No relief; plea colloquy and agreement cure counsel’s misinformation, no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel’s advice that dismissed-count conduct would not be used at sentencing rendered the plea involuntary | Stillwell: counsel said dismissed counts wouldn’t be used at sentencing, so I pled guilty | Govt/District: plea agreement and court expressly stated relevant-conduct would be considered; Stillwell acknowledged that in court | No relief; record shows Stillwell was informed relevant conduct would be considered, so no prejudice |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on these ineffective-assistance claims | Stillwell: factual dispute (including counsel’s letter) warrants an evidentiary hearing | Govt/District: allegations are contradicted by the plea agreement and plea colloquy; no reasonable probability of a different result | No abuse of discretion; the record conclusively refutes prejudice and no hearing was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards of review for § 2255 proceedings)
- Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014) (standards for entitlement to evidentiary hearing under § 2255)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland applied to guilty-plea cases; prejudice requires reasonable probability movant would have gone to trial)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (prejudice standard for plea-based ineffective-assistance claims)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 62 (1977) (statements made under oath in open court carry a strong presumption of verity)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (requirements for knowing and voluntary guilty plea)
- Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873 (11th Cir. 2015) (denial of evidentiary hearing appropriate when allegations are contradicted by the record)
- Downs-Morgan v. United States, 765 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir. 1985) (plea must not result from serious derelictions by counsel to be knowing and intelligent)