Safara Shortman v. United States, 19-35768

Safara Shortman, proceeding pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging defense counsel failed to file a requested notice of appeal after sentencing.
The district court denied relief, finding Shortman’s allegations insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed under Strickland and Flores-Ortega standards governing ineffective assistance involving appeals and the duty to consult about appeals.
The court held Shortman’s pro se allegations—she told counsel shortly after sentencing that she disagreed with the outcome and asked counsel to “do something to help her”—were specific enough to require an evidentiary hearing on whether she requested an appeal or reasonably demonstrated interest in appealing.
If the hearing substantiates her request, the district court should vacate and reenter judgment or otherwise allow the appeal; if not, the court must consider whether counsel failed to consult, and whether that failure was deficient.
The Ninth Circuit declined to expand the certificate of appealability to two other IAC claims (alleged misunderstanding of mandatory minimums and failure to challenge methamphetamine quantity/purity), finding those claims unsupported by the record or specific factual allegations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a requested notice of appeal	Shortman: she requested an appeal immediately after sentencing and counsel did not file	Government/District Ct: Shortman's pro se allegations were insufficient to show an express request	Ninth Circuit: Remanded for an evidentiary hearing; allegations are specific enough to warrant one; if proven, vacate/reenter judgment or allow appeal; if not, assess whether counsel had a duty to consult under Flores‑Ortega
Whether to expand the certificate of appealability to two additional IAC claims (plea understanding of mandatory minimums; challenge to drug quantity/purity)	Shortman: counsel was ineffective in causing her to plead without understanding mandatory minimums and in not challenging drug quantity/purity	Government: record shows Shortman understood mandatory penalties and there are no factual allegations to support a viable challenge to quantity/purity	Ninth Circuit: Declined to expand COA; claims do not make a substantial showing of constitutional error

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets deficient performance and prejudice standard for IAC)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel must file an appeal when expressly instructed; duty to consult when defendant demonstrates interest or rational defendant would appeal)
United States v. Sandoval‑Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2005) (prejudice presumed when counsel disregards express instruction to appeal; factual allegations sufficient require hearing)
United States v. Fabian‑Baltazar, 931 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2019) (remedy can include vacating and reentering judgment to allow appeal)