United States v. Cyrus Sullivan
700 F. App'x 773
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cyrus Sullivan pleaded guilty to making a threatening communication under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) based on a Superseding Information that omitted the statute’s specific intent element.
- Sullivan later filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for advising the guilty plea despite the omission.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing; it granted a certificate of appealability (COA) limited to counsel’s advice regarding the Superseding Information’s omission of intent.
- On appeal, Sullivan raised additional arguments (failure to move to arrest judgment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 34; other claims) that were not included in the COA.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether Sullivan showed Strickland prejudice (that he would have insisted on trial but for counsel’s error) and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no prejudice, declining to consider COA-excluded claims, and holding no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for pleading to Information omitting intent element | Sullivan: counsel misadvised him to plead guilty despite charging document omitting mental-state element | Government: record shows Sullivan was informed of elements and understood intent; no prejudice | Court: No prejudice under Strickland/Hill; affirmed denial of § 2255 |
| Failure to move to arrest judgment under Rule 34 post-plea | Sullivan: counsel’s failure to move under Rule 34 prejudiced him | Government: issue not raised in § 2255 and not included in COA; procedural default for appeal | Court: Not before the panel because COA did not cover Rule 34 argument |
| Entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on § 2255 motion | Sullivan: factual disputes warrant hearing | Government: record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief | Court: No abuse of discretion denying hearing; pleadings/record dispositive |
| Expansion of COA to include additional claims | Sullivan: requests broader review of constitutional claims | Government: COA should not be expanded absent substantial showing | Court: Declined to expand COA; Sullivan failed to make substantial showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice in plea context: reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2012) (standards of review for § 2255 and ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (COA required to appeal denial of Rule 60(b) motion in § 2255 proceedings)
- United States v. Bigman, 906 F.2d 392 (9th Cir. 1990) (defendant informed of elements can preclude plea-prejudice claim)
- Sully v. Ayers, 725 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion in denying evidentiary hearings)
- United States v. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) (COA requirement for appellate jurisdiction in federal habeas)
- Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard for expanding a certificate of appealability)