Robert Campbell v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14755
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and § 371.
- As part of his plea, Campbell waived most appellate rights except limited exceptions.
- At sentencing in 2010, Campbell received eight months’ imprisonment and a $35,000 fine.
- The district court reaffirmed the appeal waiver but allowed ten days to appeal; no notice of appeal was filed.
- Campbell filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging several claims, including ineffective assistance for failure to file an appeal.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing; the court of appeals granted a certificate on the appeal-waiver issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to file an appeal after an explicit instruction constitutes ineffective assistance. | Campbell argues failure to file an appeal violated Flores-Ortega and Ludwig as per se prejudice. | Government argues waiver limits appeal rights and undermines effectiveness analysis. | Yes; filing failure entitled Campbell to relief and remand for evidentiary hearing. |
| Does an appeal waiver bar post-waiver ineffective-assistance claims or permit narrow review? | Waiver does not bar all review where ineffective assistance could be shown. | Waiver limits review to non-frivolous or non-waived grounds; broad waiver forecloses relief. | Waiver does not completely bar relief when counsel failed to file a knowingly requested appeal. |
| What is the proper remedial course on remand when an appeal instruction is at issue? | District court should determine if Campbell directed an appeal and whether prejudice occurred. | Factual onus remains unresolved; evidentiary hearing needed to decide instruction issue. | District court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Campbell instructed an appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Ortega v. United States, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (applies Strickland to failure to file an appeal; prejudice from denial of appeal)
- Ludwig v. United States, 162 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 1998) (per se prejudice for failure to perfect direct appeal after explicit request)
- United States v. Toth, 668 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2012) (waiver may be challenged on knowing/voluntary grounds or ineffectiveness)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir.) (appeal waiver may be challenged on narrow grounds; non-frivolous issues exception)
- Wright v. United States, 320 F. App’x 421 (6th Cir. 2009) (unpublished; reiterates per se relief when counsel ignores explicit instruction)
- Campusano v. United States, 442 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 2006) (Anders procedure preserves review even with waiver; supports relief for failure to file)
- Poindexter v. United States, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (discusses duties of counsel regarding appellate review following waiver)
- Gomez-Diaz v. United States, 433 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizes potential appellate review despite waiver under certain circumstances)
- Sandoval-Lopez v. United States, 409 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2005) (supports Flores-Ortega framework for post-waiver appeals)
- Garrett v. United States, 402 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2005) (acknowledges Flores-Ortega applicability to failure-to-file scenarios)
- Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2008) (minority view on post-waiver appeal rights after counsel inaction)
- Watson v. United States, 493 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2007) (majority view aligning with Flores-Ortega post-waiver)