United States v. Ferguson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3880
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ferguson pled guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) under a plea agreement that included an appellate waiver and a framework for supervised-release conditions.
- Police seized Ferguson's property from 774 Cassius Ave. in Youngstown after a protective sweep; items included 78 floppy disks and various computing devices.
- A suppression motion challenging seizure was denied; district court found Ferguson had no legitimate expectation of privacy in 774 Cassius since he did not own or lawful possess the premises.
- Ferguson argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise on the viability of Fourth Amendment claims and for not preserving the suppression issue; the record was not sufficiently developed.
- The district court imposed seventeen supervised-release conditions, including internet access restrictions and associations with minors or those with sexual interests in minors; Ferguson appeals five conditions as not narrowly tailored or reasonably related to rehabilitation or public protection.
- Ferguson argues the appeal waiver in the plea agreement forecloses challenges to the special conditions, but he also contends there may be a route to challenge under Lee; the court ultimately addresses waiver and its scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether five supervised-release conditions are narrowly tailored and related to rehabilitation or public protection. | Ferguson argues the conditions are overly broad and not reasonably related to rehabilitation or protection. | Ferguson contends the conditions unnecessarily deprive liberty beyond necessary goals. | Waived review; conditions upheld as reasonably related or properly within waiver scope. |
| Whether the denial of Ferguson's suppression motion was properly reviewable given the Rule 11(a)(2) waiver and unconditional plea. | State sought to bar review due to the unconditional plea and waiver. | Ferguson argues the suppression ruling should be reviewable; ineffective-assistance issues tied to suppression may affect review. | Review is barred by waiver; suppression ruling not reviewed on direct appeal. |
| Whether Ferguson's ineffective-assistance claims are reviewable on appeal or must be pursued via post-conviction proceedings. | Record insufficient to show deficient performance; issue more appropriate for §2255. | Records could show deficient performance and prejudice. | Not decided on direct appeal; issue better raised in post-conviction proceedings due to limited record. |
| Whether Ferguson's appeal waiver forecloses challenge to the special conditions of supervised release. | Waiver covers any punishment/sentence beyond statutory maximum or guideline range, potentially incl. conditions. | Appeal waiver does not extend to collateral challenges beyond specified limits; Lee exception not controlling here. | Appeal waiver bars challenges to the special conditions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (preferred vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims in federal custody (trial record development))
- United States v. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990) (limits on when direct appeal can resolve ineffective-assistance issues)
- United States v. Bradley, 400 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2005) (deciding whether to hear ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- United States v. Smith, 344 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2003) (knowing and voluntary waiver of appellate rights; context for challenges to supervised release)
- United States v. Kirksey, 118 F.3d 1113 (6th Cir. 1997) (capacity to review plea validity and collateral consequences)
- United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926 (6th Cir. 2008) (conditional guilty pleas and preservation of appellate rights)
- United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2007) (scope of appellate review despite appellate waiver in some contexts)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (review of waiver validity and scope)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (Massaro precedent referenced for §2255 vs direct appeal path)
- United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (de novo/clear-error standards in review of certain issues)