133 F.4th 251
3d Cir.2025Background
- Roy Moses was convicted in Pennsylvania state court of drug offenses and received a sentence based on a prior record score that included a federal felon-in-possession conviction.
- Moses's trial counsel did not challenge the scoring of his federal conviction, which contributed to a higher sentencing guideline range.
- Moses's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. He sought postconviction relief, but his appointed attorney abandoned him, causing Moses to proceed pro se.
- After his petition was dismissed in state postconviction proceedings (PCRA), Moses filed a federal habeas corpus petition, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not challenging the sentencing calculation.
- The district court dismissed Moses's habeas petition, holding that the Martinez v. Ryan exception did not apply because Moses proceeded pro se after his lawyer's withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Martinez v. Ryan apply when PCRA counsel abandons a petitioner, leaving him pro se? | Moses: Yes; abandonment prevented him from asserting his claim, so Martinez should excuse the procedural default. | Commonwealth: Martinez does not apply if petitioner proceeds pro se and fails to raise the issue. | Martinez applies, permitting excuse for procedural default due to lawyer abandonment. |
| Was Moses’s procedural default excused under Martinez? | Moses: Yes; postconviction counsel’s ineffectiveness caused default on a substantial claim. | Commonwealth: No; underlying claim lacks merit, and default was not due to counsel’s ineffectiveness. | Default excused—counsel was ineffective and claim was substantial. |
| Did Moses’s trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by not challenging the prior record scoring? | Moses: Yes; counsel failed to cite case law showing his federal conviction should not have counted as a higher-level offense. | Commonwealth: No; scoring was correct or not prejudicial, and so no ineffectiveness. | Yes, trial counsel was ineffective; failure to object prejudiced Moses. |
| Is Moses entitled to federal habeas relief (resentencing)? | Moses: Yes; Sixth Amendment violation requires a new sentence. | Commonwealth: No; even if error, sentence would be unchanged. | Yes, habeas relief granted for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (procedurally defaulted ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims may be excused if due to postconviction counsel's ineffectiveness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (federal habeas review and procedural default)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016) (erroneous guidelines range likely prejudices the defendant)
- Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001) (any increase in jail time due to counsel's error is prejudice under Sixth Amendment)