United States v. Larry Gooch, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21666
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Larry Gooch Jr. was convicted in 2007 of multiple crimes, including four felony murders, and his convictions were upheld on direct appeal.
- Gooch filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion alleging multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; the District Court denied relief on March 7, 2014.
- Within 60 days of that denial Gooch filed a pro se "Request for Extension of Time" asking for 60 days to file a Certificate of Appealability (COA) or application for one.
- The District Court issued a COA as to one claim (ineffective cross-examination of a police detective) and construed Gooch’s request as an extension motion; due to a clerk-mailing failure Gooch did not receive the certificate promptly and later motions to extend or reopen were denied.
- The Government moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a timely notice/COA; the D.C. Circuit considered whether Gooch’s extension request constituted the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal and whether his ineffective-assistance claim satisfied Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gooch’s pro se request for an extension to file a COA counts as a functional equivalent of a notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 3 | Gooch’s filing (within 60 days) demonstrated intent to seek a COA and thus intent to appeal; should be treated as a notice | Government: such an extension request cannot substitute for a notice of appeal because different statutes/rules govern COA and appellate procedure | Court held the request was the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal; jurisdiction exists over the COA-limited appeal |
| Whether the functional-equivalent notice satisfied Rule 3(c) content requirements | Gooch argued his filing identified him, the order appealed, and implied appellate intent | Government argued it failed to name the appellate court and was not a proper notice | Court found Rule 3(c) requirements met or excused, and intent to appeal could reasonably be inferred; liberal construction applied |
| Whether defense counsel’s open-ended cross-examination question constituted deficient performance under Strickland | Gooch argued counsel’s "Why not?" question prompted improper witness testimony that prejudiced the defense | Government argued error (if any) was harmless given the strength of the evidence | Court assumed arguendo possible deficiency but found no Strickland prejudice; conviction upheld |
| Whether Gooch was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 claim | Gooch sought additional fact-finding to support prejudice and deficiency claims | Government maintained the record conclusively refuted prejudice and no hearing was required | Court affirmed the denial of an evidentiary hearing, concluding the record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (a document can be the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal if it notifies intent and contains Rule 3(c) contents)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- United States v. Gooch, 665 F.3d 1318 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (direct-appeal opinion summarizing trial evidence tying Gooch to murders)
- United States v. Palmer, 296 F.3d 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (timing rules for appeals involving the United States)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
- Clark v. Cartledge, 829 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2016) (request for extension to file a COA can be the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal)