United States v. David Scruggs
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17247
5th Cir.2012Background
- Scruggs pled guilty to misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4; district court imposed 14 months’ imprisonment and 1 year of supervised release.
- While serving supervised release, Scruggs moved for § 2255 relief claiming actual innocence post-Skilling, involuntary plea due to government misrepresentation, and ineffective assistance due to conflict of interest.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied § 2255 relief, and issued a COA on three issues: actual innocence, misrepresentation-related involuntariness, and ineffective assistance.
- The underlying facts involve a Katrina-related bribery scheme targeting Mississippi Judge Lackey in Jones v. Scruggs, including Balducci, Backstrom, Patterson, and the Scruggs firm; FBI recorded bribe payments and solicitations.
- Scruggs’ plea and sentence followed a superseding information; he fired counsel Farese; he did not file a direct appeal; the Fifth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief.
- The opinion addresses jurisdictional arguments and concludes Scruggs’ Skilling-based jurisdiction claim is meritless, and that no ground supports relief on the remaining constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance due to conflict of interest | Scruggs argues Farese’s dual representation harmed him. | Scruggs must show actual adverse effect on counsel’s performance and voluntariness of plea; the record shows no such effect. | Untimely and merits fail; no adverse effect shown. |
| Governmental misconduct affecting plea | Government allegedly misrepresented Langston’s testimony to the court. | misconduct not timely or sufficiently proven; defense had opportunity to challenge. | Time-barred and lacks merit; did not render plea involuntary. |
| Actual innocence as gateway to relief | Skilling supports actual innocence as a route to relief from constitutional flaws. | Actual innocence is not itself a standalone § 2255 ground; constitutional claims fail on the merits. | Actual innocence not dispositive; relief denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (U.S. 2010) (honest-services fraud scope limited to bribery/kickbacks)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited; indictment suffices to confer jurisdiction)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (U.S. 1998) (innocence claims and procedural default standards in § 2255 context)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (conflict-of-interest standards for ineffective assistance)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (due process considerations in evaluating coercive pleas and disclosure)
- United States v. Peter, 310 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 2002) (indictment language controls jurisdictional questions; extrinsic facts do not)
- Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 1997) (procedural COA limitations in appellate review)