United States v. Regina Tolliver
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15451
3rd Cir.2015Background
- Regina Tolliver, a Citizens Bank employee, was convicted by a jury of bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and unauthorized computer use based largely on use of her employee ID to access seven customer accounts; she was sentenced to 30 months and restitution.
- Trial evidence included bank investigator testimony that Tolliver said she kept her password secret and that co-workers denied knowing her password; trial counsel admitted he performed no investigation and interviewed no witnesses.
- On collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Tolliver (with new counsel) submitted affidavits and documents asserting that co-workers (especially Angela Anderson and Linda Carter) had financial problems suggesting motive, and affidavits from some alleged co-conspirators denying they knew her. She also claimed some co-workers knew her password.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying relief without a hearing; the District Court instead granted Tolliver’s § 2255 motion and ordered a new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding the newly proffered evidence could have created reasonable probability of a different verdict.
- The Government appealed, arguing the District Court abused its discretion by granting relief without first holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputes of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before resolving § 2255 IAC claims based on disputed facts | Tolliver: new evidence (co-workers’ financial troubles, affidavits from co-conspirators, assertions about password knowledge) raises disputed material facts requiring a hearing before granting relief | Government: factual disputes and credibility issues required a hearing; relief should not have been granted without testing the new evidence | Court: Vacated and remanded — District Court abused its discretion by granting § 2255 relief without holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve material factual disputes |
| Whether counsel’s admitted failure to investigate satisfies Strickland’s performance prong | Tolliver: trial counsel admitted no investigation, which meets the performance deficiency component | Government: does not contest performance prong but contends prejudice not shown without hearing | Court: Performance prong appears satisfied by counsel’s admission, but prejudice cannot be adjudicated without a hearing on disputed facts |
| Whether the proffered evidence establishes prejudice under Strickland (reasonable probability of different outcome) | Tolliver: evidence of others’ motive and denials of knowing her would likely have changed outcome | Government: the proffers are speculative, untested, and insufficient without in-court testimony and credibility assessment | Court: Prejudice determination requires evidentiary hearing because files and records are inconclusive |
| Whether district court must sua sponte hold a hearing when records are inconclusive under § 2255(b) | Tolliver: statute and precedent obligate a hearing on unresolved factual claims | Government: (implicit) hearing required before granting relief where facts in dispute | Court: Reaffirmed that § 2255(b) and Third Circuit precedent require a hearing when factual disputes exist; remanded for a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booth, 432 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2005) (district court must hold evidentiary hearing if files and records are inconclusive)
- Solis v. United States, 252 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2001) (§ 2255 requires hearing sua sponte where factual disputes are not resolved by record)
- United States v. McCoy, 410 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2005) (petition alleging facts warranting relief not clearly resolved by record triggers hearing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Allen, 613 F.2d 1248 (3d Cir. 1980) (grant of a new trial under § 2255 is appealable)
- United States v. Travillion, 759 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2014) (failure to investigate can constitute constitutionally defective representation)
- Gov’t of V.I. v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1989) (court must accept movant’s factual allegations unless clearly frivolous)
- United States v. Gray, 878 F.2d 702 (3d Cir. 1989) (prejudice cannot rest on mere speculation about what uncalled witnesses might have said)