United States v. Chaetez Clayton ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4138 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4138
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHAETEZ SEAN CLAYTON, a/k/a Sticky,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00076-KDB-DSC-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anthony
Joseph Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4138 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Chaetez Sean Clayton appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On
appeal, Clayton’s sole argument is that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance
of counsel because his trial attorney failed to call a witness Clayton asserts would have
provided exculpatory testimony. The Government moves to dismiss Clayton’s appeal on
the ground that the record does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective and
therefore Clayton’s ineffective assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. Clayton
opposes the Government’s motion. For the following reasons, we deny the Government’s
motion to dismiss but affirm the criminal judgment.
To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a “defendant must show
that counsel’s performance was deficient” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We “must indulge a
strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under
the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. at
689 (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish prejudice, the defendant must show
“that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694.
We will not consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal unless the record
conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. United States v. Campbell, 963 F.3d 309,
319 (4th Cir. 2020). Generally, a defendant should raise ineffectiveness claims in a 28
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4138 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
U.S.C. § 2255 motion, to permit sufficient development of the record. See Massaro v.
United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-06 (2003).
Clayton argues that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness is apparent on the record because
Clayton referred to an exculpatory witness during his sentencing hearing. However,
Clayton’s own statements at sentencing are insufficient to conclusively establish that trial
counsel’s performance was deficient. Moreover, even if Clayton’s statement that the
witness would have provided exculpatory evidence is accepted at face value, Clayton has
not shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been
different. Because we conclude that the record does not conclusively establish Clayton’s
claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, this claim is not cognizable on
direct appeal.
Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss but affirm the criminal
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3