United States v. Jasso Chavero , 630 F. App'x 866 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 4, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-5028
(D.C. Nos. 4:13-CV-00791-CVE-TLW and
EDGARDO JASSO CHAVERO, 4:12-CR-00101-CVE-6)
previously named as Edgardo Chavero- (N.D. Okla.)
Jasso,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Edgardo Jasso-Chavero, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from a
district court order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion and denying an
evidentiary hearing. We conclude that further factual development of Jasso-
Chavero’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is necessary. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment.
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
I
We outlined the facts of this case in our prior order granting in part and
denying in part Jasso-Chavero’s application for a certificate of appealability
(“COA”). See Order Granting in Part & Den. in Part a COA, No. 15-5028 (10th Cir.,
filed Aug. 11, 2015). Accordingly, we provide only a brief summary of the facts
relevant to the single issue upon which we granted a COA.
In his § 2255 motion, Jasso-Chavero claimed that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file a notice of appeal despite a
timely request to do so. He attached an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury,
stating that he “asked counsel to file an appeal” but “counsel failed to file a notice of
appeal despite defendant’s timely request.”
In response, the government submitted an affidavit from defense counsel, who
stated that he met with Jasso-Chavero in jail after sentencing to discuss a potential
appeal. According to counsel, he provided Jasso-Chavero a form titled
“Acknowledgment of Right to Appeal from Conviction and/or Sentence,” which was
translated by an interpreter. After first refusing to sign the form, Jasso-Chavero told his
counsel at the end of the meeting that he did not want to file a direct appeal and signed
the portion of the form stating so. The form is attached to counsel’s affidavit. Counsel
states that he advised Jassso-Chavero to contact him if he changed his mind within the
fourteen-day deadline to appeal, but Jasso-Chavero did not do so.
In his reply, Jasso-Chavero acknowledged that he signed the form. However, he
claims that he only signed because counsel stated “that it was not convenient at taht [sic]
-2-
time, but that he would appeal after he [sic] got to prison and that he himself would
assist.” Jasso-Chavero states that he was “induced to sign” the form only because of
counsel’s false promise. He requested an evidentiary hearing.
The district court denied relief and declined to order an evidentiary hearing. It
noted that, as a general matter, it “would be required to hold an evidentiary hearing to
resolve factual disputes as to defendant’s claim that he directed his attorney to file a
notice of appeal.” But the court concluded that “[t]here is undisputed evidence in the
record that defendant did not direct [counsel] to file a notice of appeal,” citing counsel’s
affidavit. In discussing this issue, the court did not refer to the allegations contained in
Jasso-Chavero’s reply.
Jasso-Chavero filed a timely notice of appeal. We granted a COA on the issue of
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing as to
Jasso-Chavero’s claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal despite his timely
request.
II
We review the denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Clingman, 288 F.3d 1183, 1187 n.4 (10th Cir. 2002). “Unless the motion and
the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no
relief, the court shall . . . grant a prompt hearing thereon . . . .” § 2255(b). When a
movant’s allegations—if accepted as true—would entitle him to relief, a district court
generally may not make “findings on controverted issues of fact . . . without a hearing.”
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493-94 (1962). However, “[c]onclusory
-3-
allegations unsupported by specifics are insufficient to require a court to grant an
evidentiary hearing, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly
incredible.” Hopkinson v. Shillinger, 866 F.2d 1185, 1211 (10th Cir. 1989) (quotation
and ellipses omitted), overruled on other grounds as stated in Phillips v. Ferguson, 182
F.3d 769, 772-73 (10th Cir. 1999).
Jasso-Chavero alleged in his § 2255 motion that he timely requested that counsel
file an appeal, and that counsel failed to do so. He attached an affidavit to the same
effect. A particularized claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal despite a
timely request is generally sufficient to warrant relief. See United States v. Snitz, 342
F.3d 1154, 1155-56 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[A] lawyer who disregards specific instructions to
perfect a criminal appeal acts in a manner that is both professionally unreasonable and
presumptively prejudicial.”); see also United States v. Garrett, 402 F.3d 1262, 1266-67
(10th Cir. 2005) (evidentiary hearing required when habeas movant claims he requested
an appeal but attorney denies claim).
The district court relied on the waiver form submitted by counsel to hold that the
record conclusively established that Jasso-Chavero was not entitled to relief. But it
appears that the district court did not consider Jasso-Chavero’s allegation that counsel
induced him to sign the form by falsely promising to assist with an appeal at a later date.
If accepted as true, these allegations indicate that Jasso-Chavero did not knowingly and
voluntarily withdraw his alleged request that an appeal be filed. See United States v.
Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1325 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (valid waiver of appellate rights
must be done “knowingly and voluntarily”).
-4-
In its filings with this court, the government suggests that Jasso-Chavero’s
allegations are conclusory and palpably incredible. It argues that the claims Jasso-
Chavero asserts in his reply were similar to those in United States v. Harrison, 375 F.
App’x 830 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). In that case, we held that an evidentiary
hearing was not required based on an allegation that “[c]ounsel told Appellant that he
need not worry, as it would all get corrected on Direct Appeal.” Id. at 833. But the
government’s argument ignores Jasso-Chavero’s affidavit, in which he affirmatively
states that he asked counsel to file an appeal. See United States v. Lee-Speight, 529 F.
App’x 903, 905 (10th Cir 2013) (unpublished) (statement that counsel “failed to file a
notice of appeal . . . as requested by petitioner to do so” sufficient). Taken together,
Jasso-Chavero’s allegations would entitle him to relief if proven to be true, particularly
when afforded a liberal construction due to his pro se status. See Barnett v. Hargett, 174
F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999).
The government also argues that Jasso-Chavero’s credibility is suspect for a
number of reasons. There is little doubt that Jasso-Chavero undermined his credibility
during district court proceedings. Had the district court expressly rejected Jasso-
Chavero’s statements as unworthy of credence, taking into account his reply brief, this
appeal would stand in a different posture. But the district court did not make a credibility
determination, nor did it grapple with the allegations contained in Jasso-Chavero’s reply.
Under these circumstances, we are ill-equipped to review a hypothetical credibility
ruling. See Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 444 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[W]ithout an
-5-
explanation of why it exercised its discretion in the manner it did, we are unable to
review the district court’s decision.”).1
Although we conclude that this case requires further development, we do not hold
that the district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing. “[T]here are times when
allegations of facts outside the record can be fully investigated without requiring the
personal presence of the prisoner.” Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 495; see also Lee-Speight,
529 F. App’x at 907 n.5 (“[T]he district court retains flexibility to utilize alternative
methods to expand the record without conducting an extensive hearing.” (quotation
omitted)). Both parties have noted that an affidavit from the interpreter who witnessed
Jasso-Chavero’s meeting with counsel may be useful. And in rare circumstances, a
district court may make a credibility finding solely on the basis of affidavits. See
Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151, 1161 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that trial courts are
entitled to deference as to findings regarding the credibility of affidavits). On the record
before us, however, we are compelled to remand for further development.
III
We REVERSE and REMAND with directions for the district court to vacate
its dismissal of Jasso-Chavero’s habeas motion and further develop the factual record
1
The government also notes that Jasso-Chavero’s reply was not signed under
penalty of perjury. Under Rule 2(b)(5) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, a
§ 2255 motion must be signed under penalty of perjury. Even assuming this rule governs
replies, however, movants should generally be provided an opportunity to correct such a
defect. See United States v. Guerrero, 488 F.3d 1313, 1316 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing
§ 2255 Rules, Advisory Committee Notes, 2004 amendments).
-6-
as necessary to resolve in the first instance the merits of his ineffective assistance
claim. We GRANT the government’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-7-