United States v. Vincent Aldridge
688 F. App'x 248
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tori Elyse Aldridge and Vincent Wallace Aldridge were convicted of conspiracy and multiple counts of wire fraud and related money-transaction offenses.
- They filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland for failure to challenge venue for the § 1343 wire-fraud counts in the Southern District of Texas.
- The court granted a certificate of appealability limited to whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to venue in the Southern District of Texas for the wire-fraud charges.
- The Aldridges conceded that they orchestrated the relevant wire transmissions from the Southern District of Texas but argued the actual transmissions did not originate, pass through, or terminate in that district (i.e., they did not “breach” the district), so venue was improper.
- The district court denied relief; the Fifth Circuit considered whether counsel’s failure to challenge venue was constitutionally deficient given unsettled circuit precedent on whether venue includes the district where communications were orchestrated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge venue for § 1343 wire-fraud counts in the Southern District of Texas | Venue was improper because the relevant wire communications did not originate, travel through, or terminate in the Southern District of Texas | Venue was proper because the defendants orchestrated the communications from the Southern District and circuit authority is unsettled | Counsel not shown to be ineffective; failure to object was reasonable given unclear Fifth Circuit precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Boruff v. United States, 310 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1962) (venue improper where no interstate communication traveled through the district despite related activity there)
- United States v. Harbolt, 426 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1970) (venue proper in district where communications were orchestrated even if interstate wires did not pass through)
- Sharp v. Johnson, 107 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 1997) (counsel not deficient for failing to raise claims where governing law was unsettled or unclear)
- United States v. Daniels, 588 F.3d 835 (5th Cir. 2009) (limiting appellate consideration to issues within the certificate of appealability)