Junior Sylvin v. United States
679 F. App'x 975
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Junior Sylvin, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion contesting his counsel’s effectiveness; the district court denied relief and granted a COA on two issues.
- Sylvin claims defense counsel Barry Greff advised him to reject a government 10‑year plea offer and pursue suppression motions; suppression motions were denied and Sylvin received a 216‑month sentence.
- Sylvin also contends Greff was ineffective at sentencing for failing to call three codefendants/witnesses who would rebut an organizer/leader role.
- Sylvin submitted affidavits asserting witness willingness to testify; the district court declined an evidentiary hearing on both claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and examined whether the record conclusively refuted Sylvin’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective in plea negotiations for advising rejection of a 10‑year offer | Greff told Sylvin to reject a 10‑year plea and litigate suppression; this advice led to a much longer sentence, so counsel was ineffective | Record shows no evidence a 10‑year offer was made; claim is contradicted by the record | Court: No evidentiary hearing; claim contradicted by record, district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to call witnesses to rebut organizer/leader role | Affidavits say witnesses would testify Sylvin was not an organizer/leader; failure to call them prejudiced sentencing | Two witnesses were unavailable; decision about calling the third was a strategic choice by counsel | Court: No evidentiary hearing; counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategic choice and not patently unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of evidentiary hearing in § 2255 proceedings)
- Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (Strickland framework and highly deferential review of counsel performance)
- Anderson v. United States, 948 F.2d 704 (11th Cir. 1991) (district court must hold hearing unless record conclusively shows no relief)
- Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873 (11th Cir. 2015) (allegations contradicted by the record do not require an evidentiary hearing)
- Conklin v. Schofield, 366 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2004) (calling witnesses at sentencing is a strategic decision seldom second‑guessed)
- Dingle v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs., 480 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2007) (ineffectiveness requires decisions so patently unreasonable that no competent attorney would make them)