John W. Goff v. United States
693 F. App'x 854
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Goff, a federal prisoner, challenged his 144-month sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion after convictions for embezzlement, false statements to an insurance regulator, and mail fraud.
- Goff alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present an advice-of-counsel defense and contended counsel had a conflict of interest by being in the same firm as a potentially implicated attorney.
- Trial counsel and supporting affidavits explained the decision not to call potential advice-of-counsel witnesses was strategic: uncertainty about witness testimony and concern that invocation of the Fifth Amendment would harm the defense.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing; a certificate of appealability was granted on ineffective assistance and denial of a hearing.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the legal issues de novo and factual findings for clear error, and reviewed denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting advice-of-counsel witnesses | Goff: omission was unreasonable and prejudiced trial outcome | Govt: decision was strategic and reasonable; counsel uncertain about witness testimony and potential Fifth Amendment invocation | Counsel's choice was a reasonable strategic decision; Strickland not met — no ineffective assistance |
| Whether counsel had an actual conflict of interest affecting representation | Goff: counsel's firm association with Gallion created a conflict that influenced trial choices | Govt: only a possible, not actual, conflict; affidavits show strategic reasons for decisions, not firm-protecting motives | No actual conflict shown and no effect on representation; Cuyler not satisfied |
| Whether the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing under § 2255(b) | Goff: factual disputes required a hearing to resolve credibility and counsel conduct | Govt: the record (affidavits, transcripts, memorandum) affirmatively contradicted claims and showed no entitlement to relief | Denial of an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion; record conclusively refuted claims |
| Standard and proof for appellate review of § 2255 denial | Goff: argued alleged errors warranted de novo factual development | Govt: maintained record supported denial without hearing | Court applied de novo review to legal issues, clear-error to facts, and affirmed district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Conklin v. Schofield, 366 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2004) (decision which witnesses to call is a strategic choice that rarely establishes ineffective assistance)
- Adams v. Wainwright, 709 F.2d 1443 (11th Cir. 1983) (attorney strategy will not be deemed ineffective unless patently unreasonable)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (requires actual conflict that adversely affects representation to establish Sixth Amendment violation)
- Buenoano v. Singletary, 74 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir. 1996) (mere possibility of conflict insufficient for Sixth Amendment violation)
- Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873 (11th Cir. 2015) (district court need not hold evidentiary hearing when record affirmatively contradicts § 2255 allegations)
- Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for appellate review of § 2255 denial)