Michael A. Rosin v. United States ( 2013 )

Case: 11-14391 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 11-14391
__________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:09-cv-01158-SCB-MAP; 8:05-cr-00143-SCB-MAP-1
MICHAEL A. ROSIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant – Appellee.
_______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________________
(June 19, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, JORDAN and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Rosin filed a motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. We
Case: 11-14391 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 2 of 4
granted a certificate of appealability on “[w]hether the district court erred in
denying, without an evidentiary hearing, [Mr.] Rosin’s claim that counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by grossly underestimating the sentence that he would
receive if were convicted at trial, and by failing to pursue a plea bargain.”
Following oral argument and review of the record, we vacate the district court’s
order denying relief and remand with instructions.
In its order denying Mr. Rosin’s motion to vacate, the district court twice
indicated that Mr. Rosin had to establish the prejudice prong of Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), by “clear and convincing” evidence. See Order
Denying Motion to Vacate at 15 (“[Mr. Rosin’s] statement is far from clear and
convincing evidence that there is a reasonable probability that he would have in
fact pled guilty.”); id. at 17 (“The fact that [Mr. Rosin] has not shown by clear and
convincing evidence that there is a reasonable probability he would have pled
guilty is further supported by the statements of his attorneys.”). Those statements,
as we explain, were incorrect and placed an undue burden on Mr. Rosin.
To establish prejudice in a scenario like this one, Mr. Rosin had to show that
there was a “reasonable probability” that, “absent counsel’s alleged ineffective
assistance, he would have [pled guilty].” United States v. Diaz, 930 F.2d 832, 835
(11th Cir. 1991). A “reasonable probability” is “a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Significantly,
2
Case: 11-14391 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 3 of 4
the “reasonable probability” standard “is less than proof by a preponderance of the
evidence.” Agan v. Singletary, 12 F.3d 1012, 1018 (11th Cir. 1994). See also
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 (“We believe that a petitioner need not show that
counsel’s deficient performance more likely than not altered the outcome[.]”).
Thus, the “clear and convincing” evidence standard – which “entails proof that a
claim is ‘highly probable,’ a standard requiring more than a preponderance of the
evidence but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mansfield v. Secretary,
Fla. Dept. of Corrections, 679 F.3d 1301, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012) – had no place in
the district court’s “reasonable probability” determination.
When a district court uses the wrong legal standard, we can remand for
application of the appropriate standard, see, e.g., Kearse v. Secretary, Fla. Dept. of
Corrections, 669 F.3d 1197, 1198 (11th Cir. 2011), and that is what we conclude is
appropriate here. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Mr.
Rosin relief, and remand so that the district court can evaluate the prejudice prong
of Mr. Rosin’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the “reasonable
probability” standard set forth in Strickland, and determine whether an evidentiary
hearing is warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) (“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, determine the issues, and make
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.”); Aaron v. United
3
Case: 11-14391 Date Filed: 06/19/2013 Page: 4 of 4
States, 291 F.3d 708, 714-15 (11th Cir. 2002) (“As we have previously stated, if
the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief, then the district
court should order an evidentiary hearing and rule on the merits of his claim.”). In
making that determination, the district court should not make factual findings
based on factual assertions by counsel in legal memoranda unless those assertions
are supported by affidavits, declarations, exhibits, or other evidence. See United
States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[A]bsent a
stipulation or agreement between the parties, an attorney’s factual assertions at a
sentencing hearing do not constitute evidence that the district court can rely on.”).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4