United States v. Robinson , 238 F. App'x 954 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7118
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODRIKUS MARSHUN ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00198-JAB; 1:05-cv-00572-JAB)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 22, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodrikus Marshun Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett
Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodrikus Marshun Robinson appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000), in which he claimed, among other things, that counsel
provided ineffective assistance by failing to communicate a plea
offer. We previously granted Robinson a certificate of
appealability on this issue. In the same order, we denied a
certificate of appealability and dismissed Robinson’s appeal with
respect to all other issues. For the reasons that follow, we
vacate and remand for further proceedings.
Robinson asserts on appeal that counsel failed to
communicate a plea offer, in which the Government agreed to
withdraw its reliance on one prior felony controlled substance
conviction. Robinson explicitly raised the failure-to-communicate
claim for the first time in response to counsel’s affidavit filed
with the Government’s response to his § 2255 motion and raised it
again in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
In its appellate brief, the Government notes that neither the
magistrate judge nor the district court explicitly addressed
Robinson’s claim and requests a remand for the court to address
that claim in the first instance.
Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 unless it is clear from the pleadings, files, and
records that a movant is not entitled to relief. United States v.
- 2 -
Witherspoon, 231 F.3d 923, 925-26 (4th Cir. 2000); Raines v. United
States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970). Whether an evidentiary
hearing is necessary is best left to the sound discretion of the
district court judge. Raines, 423 F.2d at 530. However, when a
movant presents a colorable Sixth Amendment claim showing disputed
facts involving inconsistencies beyond the record, a hearing is
mandated. See United States v. Magini, 973 F.2d 261, 264 (4th Cir.
1992); Raines, 423 F.2d at 530 (“There will remain . . . a category
of petitions, usually involving credibility, that will require an
evidentiary hearing in open court.”).
Because resolution of Robinson’s ineffective assistance
of counsel claim was not addressed explicitly by the district court
and turns on a credibility determination, we vacate the district
court’s order—to the extent it implicitly denied that claim—and
remand for further proceedings. Raines, 423 F.2d at 530 (“When the
issue is one of credibility, resolution on the basis of affidavits
can rarely be conclusive[.]”). We deny Robinson’s motion to
reconsider the denial of a certificate of appealability as to his
other claims and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -