United States v. Grigsby , 633 F. App'x 696 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        January 27, 2016
    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                          No. 15-3281
    (D.C. Nos. 6:15-CV-01154-JTM and
    PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY,                                 6:12-CR-10174-JTM-1)
    (D. Kan.)
    Defendant - Appellant.
    _________________________________
    ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
    _________________________________
    Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Philip Grigsby requests a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the
    denial of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion. Because reasonable jurists could not debate
    the merits of Grigsby’s claims, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
    I
    Grigsby pled guilty to multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, one
    count of possessing child pornography, and one count of being a felon in possession
    of a firearm. He was sentenced to 260 years’ imprisonment, a sentence we affirmed
    on direct appeal. United States v. Grigsby, 
    749 F.3d 908
     (10th Cir. 2008). Grigsby
    now seeks a COA to appeal the district court's denial of his motion, arguing his plea
    *
    This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the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.
    was not knowing and voluntary, and that his counsel was ineffective at the sentencing
    phase.
    II
    Grisby may not appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion without
    a COA. § 2253(c)(1)(B). When a district court has rejected a constitutional claim on
    the merits, a “petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
    district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” for a
    COA to be granted. Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000).
    Construing Grigsby’s pleadings liberally, Hall v. Bellmon, 
    935 F.2d 1106
    ,
    1110 (10th Cir.1991), he argues there is no proof in the record that his counsel
    informed him of the consequences of a guilty plea, and thus his plea was not knowing
    or voluntary. “[T]o determine whether a plea is voluntary, a court must assess
    whether the defendant fully understood the consequences of the plea.” United States
    v. Williams, 
    919 F.2d 1451
    , 1456 (10th Cir. 1990). We review the voluntariness of a
    plea de novo. 
    Id. at 1455
    .
    The thorough work of the district court demonstrates that Grigsby’s plea was
    knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. During a lengthy colloquy with Grigsby, the
    district court ensured that he understood each of the ten charges to which he was
    pleading guilty, reviewed the potential sentence for each count, explained to Grigsby
    that he was pleading guilty without any sort of agreement, made sure that Grigsby
    had reviewed each of the charges with his attorney, and informed Grigsby that by
    -2-
    pleading guilty, he was waiving his right to a jury trial. One colloquy is particularly
    clear:
    THE COURT: You're telling me that you have met at length with [your
    attorney], and that you fully understand each of the charges and the
    potential penalties?
    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I accept responsibility for them
    all.
    Moreover, Grigsby’s attorney stated he had reviewed the charges and potential
    penalties for each offense carefully with Grigsby, and was satisfied that
    Grigsby understood both. Grigsby’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and
    voluntary. No reasonable jurist could debate this holding.
    Grigsby additionally claims that his attorney was deficient by failing to
    argue that the testimony of an expert witness was inadmissible at sentencing.
    A defendant’s claim premised on ineffective assistance of counsel must show
    “his counsel’s performance was so prejudicial that there is a reasonable
    probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
    proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Ruth, 
    100 F.3d 111
    ,
    113 (10th Cir. 1996). Grigsby argues that the expert’s testimony was outside
    the scope of his expertise, but the only evidence Grigsby provides to support
    this claim is a civil suit he brought against the expert for fraudulent
    misrepresentation and malpractice, which was dismissed. Grisby v. Lemuz,
    609 F. App’x 551, 552-53 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished). The admission of
    the claimed evidence would not alter the outcome of Grigsby’s sentencing
    -3-
    hearing and thus his claim fails. Reasonable jurists could not debate this
    result.
    Grigsby separately argues that his attorney was ineffective for failing to
    argue for the admission of certain evidence about the sexual and medical
    history of one of his victims. But it is unclear why he thinks this evidence is
    relevant. To the extent Grigsby asserts the evidence would prove he did not
    commit the charged crime, his knowing guilty plea forecloses any collateral
    attack on the conviction. See United States v. Broce, 
    488 U.S. 563
    , 569
    (1989). To the extent he argues such evidence would be relevant at the
    sentencing phase, he has not attempted to show that his sentence would be
    different if the district court had admitted this evidence during the sentencing
    hearing. He thus has not demonstrated any error was prejudicial. See Ruth,
    
    100 F.3d at 113
    .
    III
    We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
    Entered for the Court
    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-3281

Citation Numbers: 633 F. App'x 696

Judges: Kelly, Lucero, McHUGH

Filed Date: 1/27/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024