United States v. Fletcher
678 F. App'x 646
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- John C. Fletcher, a federal inmate, was convicted by a jury on 39 counts (drug offenses and felon-in-possession) and received concurrent sentences including life for many counts.
- This court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal; certiorari was denied.
- Fletcher filed a § 2255 motion raising 19 grounds: conflicts of counsel/colloquy, ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple theories), trial-court evidentiary rulings (expert/overview/ultimate-issue testimony), constructive amendment/variance, failure to give a multiple-conspiracy instruction, jury-note handling, competency-exam procedure, cumulative error, and ineffective appellate assistance.
- The district court denied the § 2255 motion; Fletcher sought a Certificate of Appealability (COA) and asked to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the record and denied a COA and Fletcher’s motion for abeyance, concluding reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Fletcher's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Claims previously litigated on direct appeal (issues 4, 8, 10) | Errors (overview testimony, variance, expert qualification) warrant § 2255 relief despite direct-appeal resolution | These issues were decided on direct appeal; absent an intervening change in law they are not relitigable on § 2255 | Court: No COA; claims precluded by direct-appeal resolution |
| 2. Ineffective assistance tied to above issues (5, 9, 11) | Counsel ineffective for failing to object to the same evidentiary errors | Counsel not ineffective because underlying claims were meritless on direct appeal | Court: No COA; counsel not ineffective |
| 3. Other trial/counsel errors (conflict/colloquy; plea advice; expert ultimate-issue testimony; multiple-conspiracy instruction; jury note; competency hearing) (1–3, 6–7, 12–17) | Various errors and counsel failures deprived Fletcher of due process and effective assistance | District court and records show no reasonably debatable error; many arguments were not raised below or lack merit | Court: No COA; district court’s rulings not reasonably debatable |
| 4. Cumulative error and ineffective appellate assistance (18, 19) | Cumulative effect of alleged errors and appellate counsel’s failure to raise these issues merit relief | No individual errors of merit; thus no cumulative error; appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for not raising meritless claims | Court: No COA; claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (COA substantial-showing standard)
- Prichard v. United States, 875 F.2d 789 (10th Cir. 1989) (preclusion of issues decided on direct appeal)
- Nolan v. United States, 571 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1978) (same principle)
- Hawkins v. Hannigan, 185 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 1999) (appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless claims)
- Evans v. United States, 970 F.2d 663 (10th Cir. 1992) (multiple-conspiracy instruction discussion)
- Edwards v. United States, 69 F.3d 419 (10th Cir. 1995) (multiple-conspiracy instruction; burden-of-proof instruction can cure omission)
- Moore v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) (cumulative-error framework)
- United States v. Brooks, 736 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2013) (overview-testimony caution; court found it did not change result)
- United States v. Fletcher, [citation="497 F. App'x 795"] (10th Cir.) (affirming convictions on direct appeal)
- Beckles v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2510 (Supreme Court decision pending at time; court found it would not affect § 2255 resolution)