United States v. Oneal
20-50494
| 5th Cir. | Sep 20, 2021Background
- Irick Dron Oneal was convicted of sex trafficking of children and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Oneal filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition in the Western District of Texas; the district court denied relief and refused a Certificate of Appealability (COA).
- Oneal moved for a COA in the Fifth Circuit; after initial denial, reconsideration was granted and the court considered his claims.
- Oneal’s § 2255 claims were consolidated into three categories: (1) ineffective assistance at trial (choice of strategy requiring Oneal to testify), (2) ineffective assistance at sentencing (failure to secure a special jury verdict and to prevent sentence enhancements), and (3) ineffective assistance on direct appeal (raised for the first time in the COA motion).
- Trial counsel shifted blame toward an alleged co-conspirator, prompting Oneal’s testimony; counsel and the district court informed Oneal of his right not to testify. Counsel requested a unanimity instruction, objected to several sentencing enhancements (Obstruction, Pattern of Activity, Leadership Role) and preserved issues for appeal; counsel did not object to an Undue Influence enhancement based on a 27-year age difference, which the court deemed meritless.
- The district court denied an evidentiary hearing; the Fifth Circuit held that no reasonable jurists would find the district court’s rejection of Oneal’s constitutional claims debatable and denied the COA and evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Oneal's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel ineffective for strategy that required Oneal to testify | Counsel’s decision to shift blame forced Oneal to testify and waive Fifth Amendment protections, constituting deficient performance | Strategic choice was informed and reasonable; defendant was advised of right not to testify; no constitutional error | Denied — counsel’s strategic choice was within reasonable professional judgment; not debatable |
| 2. Sentencing counsel ineffective for failing to secure special jury verdict and prevent enhancements | Counsel failed to request a special jury verdict/unanimity on aiding/abetting and failed to prevent multiple enhancements, prejudicing sentence | Counsel requested unanimity instruction and preserved it; timely objected to several enhancements; failure to object to Undue Influence was reasonable because objection would be meritless given 27-year age gap | Denied — objections preserved where appropriate; not deficient or prejudicial; issue not debatable |
| 3. Appellate counsel ineffective (raised first in COA motion) | Appellate counsel failed to raise certain issues on direct appeal | Claim was raised for the first time in COA motion — Fifth Circuit need not consider it here | Not addressed on merits — court declined to reach claim raised initially in COA motion |
| 4. Denial of evidentiary hearing | Oneal requested an evidentiary hearing to develop claims | An evidentiary hearing is warranted only if a constitutional violation is shown | Denied — no constitutional violation shown, so hearing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for COA when district court rejects claims on the merits)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ransom v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1997) (deference to informed, strategic counsel decisions)
- Clark v. Thaler, 673 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2012) (failure to make meritless objections is not deficient performance)
- Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2003) (court need not consider claims raised first in COA motion)
- Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2016) (evidentiary hearings are corollary to established constitutional violations)