Ryan v. United States
657 F.3d 604
7th Cir.2011Background
- Ryan pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, was sentenced to 65 months, 3 years’ supervised release, and forfeiture.
- Neither Ryan nor his lawyers filed a timely notice of appeal; his conviction became final when the 10-day appeal window closed.
- Ryan filed a pro se 2255 motion asserting counsel abandoned him by failing to file an appeal, despite instructions.
- Ryan argued the 2255 limitation period should not start until discovery of counsel’s failure under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(4) or (f)(2), or equity tolling.
- District court denied the motion as untimely under § 2255(f)(1) and did not address alternative starting dates.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for further fact-finding on timeliness and the underlying claim of counsel’s failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did counsel’s failure to file an appeal violate Sixth Amendment? | Ryan alleges counsel refused to file after instruction. | Government contends no appeal filed; timeliness issues predominate. | Yes; failure to file after a direct instruction violates right to counsel. |
| When does § 2255 motion timeliness begin for claims of missed appeal? | Start at discovery under § 2255(f)(4) or (f)(2). | Start date may be earlier; full year applies after starting. | Remanded for factual development to determine proper start date and diligence. |
| Is discovery or a hearing required to resolve timeliness and merits? | Discovery/hearing necessary to establish facts supporting abandonment claim. | Record can be developed via affidavits; hearing not always required. | Remand permissible; district court may elicit additional affidavits or testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 2000) (counsel's duty to file when instructed to appeal)
- Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 1999) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel on direct appeal)
- Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1969) (counsel abandonment on appeal claim standards)
- Gant v. United States, 627 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2010) (counsel duties and habeas considerations)
- Castellanos v. United States, 26 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1994) (pleading and evidence standards in habeas)
- United States v. Hirsch, 207 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000) (pro se movant evidence sufficiency; entitlement to relief)