Mitchell, James v. United States, 0:24-cv-61603

James Irwin Mitchell was convicted in 2023 on three federal charges, but, via plea deal, pled only to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i)), resulting in a 72-month sentence.
Mitchell was represented by Federal Public Defender Adebunmi Lomax, who negotiated the plea and sentencing terms, and the Government dismissed other more severely punished counts.
Mitchell filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on Lomax's alleged failure to file a notice of appeal as requested.
An evidentiary hearing was held, focused on whether Lomax failed to file an appeal after a specific request from Mitchell.
Both sides presented evidence and testimony, centering heavily on a credibility determination between Mitchell and his former counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance – failure to file notice of appeal	Mitchell argued his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal after his explicit request, violating the Sixth Amendment	Lomax argued she consulted fully and was never requested to file an appeal; would have filed if asked	No ineffectiveness; court found Lomax's testimony more credible
Ineffective assistance – failure to consult about appeal	Mitchell implied counsel did not adequately consult regarding appeal options	Lomax and record showed full consultation occurred on appeal decision	No deficiency; court found consultation occurred
Whether inadequate evidence supports Mitchell’s claim	Mitchell relied on his own testimony and unsworn statements from relatives	Lomax’s testimony was detailed and consistent; no documentary support for Mitchell	Court found Mitchell’s evidence lacking, burden not met
Certificate of appealability	Implied by filing for habeas relief	Government argued no substantial showing of constitutional right denied	Certificate denied—no debatable constitutional question

Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (per se violation of counsel's duty occurs if attorney fails to file notice of appeal when explicitly requested by client)
Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232 (defendant need not show appeal would have merit if counsel failed to file upon request)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability following habeas denial)