782 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Washington (also known as Wayne Watson) was convicted in 2006 for felon in possession of a firearm and ecstasy distribution.
- Police stopped Washington in 2004; weapon found under driver's floormat and ecstasy in a bag in the car.
- Suppression motions challenged the stop and search; initial motion denied, suppression hearing reopened and denied again.
- Conviction affirmed on direct appeal by the D.C. Circuit; ruling noted the Fourth Amendment compliance with search.
- Washington now moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his conviction and seeks appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coercion claim is procedurally barred | Washington asserts coercion by Officer Teixiera | Government contends failure to raise on direct appeal precludes relief | Procedurally barred; unlikely to succeed |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims warrant relief | Washington alleges Jeffress and Wicks were ineffective | Counsel's strategic choices not shown to be deficient | Unlikely to succeed on merits |
| Whether Wicks's failure to call Teixiera at trial affected outcome | Impeachment of Teixiera could have changed result | No plausible showing that impeachment would change admissibility or outcome | Unlikely to succeed on merits |
| Whether the interests of justice require appointment of counsel | Appointment of counsel is needed to pursue § 2255 claims | No necessity for counsel given the record and claim viability | Interests of justice do not warrant appointment of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodges v. United States, 282 F.2d 858 (D.C.Cir. 1960) (coerced confession typically reviewed on direct appeal)
- United States v. Waite, 382 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005) (interests of justice in appointing counsel in § 2255 cases evaluated)
- Watson v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2005) (rejects ineffective-assistance challenges based on trial record)
- Washington v. United States, 559 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Fourth Amendment issue affirmed; search did not violate the Constitution)
- Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2001) (criteria for evaluating § 2255 appointment of counsel)