Micheal Anthony Prozer, III v. United States
696 F. App'x 977
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Prozer was sentenced to 102 months for mail, wire, and bank fraud and related offenses.
- Prozer proceeded pro se and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
- The district court denied his § 2255 motion without addressing two ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Eleventh Circuit granted a COA on whether the district court violated Clisby by not addressing those IAC claims.
- The court found the district court failed to adjudicate the two IAC claims and vacated/remanded for full consideration of those claims.
- The remand did not express any view on the merits of the IAC claims by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court violated Clisby by not addressing IAC claims. | Prozer's IAC claims (pretrial motions and text messages) were raised and not addressed. | District court did address most IAC claims but omitted these two. | Vacate and remand to consider these IAC claims. |
| Whether counsel's failure to file pretrial motions and subpoena texts affected Sixth Amendment rights. | Counsel refused to file pretrial motions and failed to subpoena texts, prejudicing defense. | District court must evaluate whether those omissions were ineffective assistance. | Remand for district court to decide merits of IAC claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc; requires addressing all § 2255 claims; failure to do so reversible)
- Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2009) (requirement to resolve all claims in a § 2255 proceeding)
- Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013) (claims must be presented in clear and simple language)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)