United States v. Doyle
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2401
6th Cir.2011Background
- Indictment in early 2005 for two counts of crack cocaine possession with intent to distribute; Doyle pled guilty to one count, other dismissed.
- Government moved for a § 5K1.1 downward departure based on Doyle's cooperation, yielding a guidelines range of 140–175 months; district court imposed 140 months.
- Doyle moved to vacate the sentence alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file an appeal; district court denied the § 2255 claim but granted the motion to vacate, resentencing Doyle.
- At resentencing, Doyle again received a 140-month sentence; Doyle appealed and the government cross-appealed.
- Issue on appeal: whether the district court could resentence under § 2255 after finding no ineffective assistance; government argues it could not, having rejected the IAC claim.
- Court vacates district court order, reinstates original sentence in light of government's cross-appeal and lack of grounds to vacate the sentence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2255 court had authority to resentence when it found no IAC | Doyle | Doyle's IAC finding should permit resentencing for justice | Yes, the district court could reinstate original sentence; reversed as to authority to vacate |
| Whether the district court erred in granting § 2255 relief after rejecting IAC | Doyle | Court erred by vacating without basis | Yes, court erred; §2255 relief vacated and original sentence reinstated |
| Appropriate standard of review and Flores-Ortega application | Doyle | Counsel's consultation with Doyle about an appeal did not amount to instruction to appeal | Flores-Ortega applied; counsel's consultation did not constitute inadequate performance under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (whether counsel must follow defendant's instruction to appeal when consulted about appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Weinberger v. United States, 268 F.3d 346 (6th Cir. 2001) (threshold for §2255 filing: constitutional error, etc.)
- Addonizio v. United States, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (fundamental error standard for §2255 relief)
- Mapes v. Tate, 388 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2004) (evaluates ineffective assistance claims in §2255 context)
- Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2009) (applies de novo standard to legal questions in §2255 appeals)