United States v. Harrison ( 2022 )

Case: 19-10916 Document: 00516252034 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 24, 2022
No. 19-10916
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Emanuel James Harrison,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-1653
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Emanuel James Harrison, former federal inmate # 43925-177, appeals
the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, arguing that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel that affected the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
Harrison was sentenced to an 84-month term of imprisonment followed by a
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10916 Document: 00516252034 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
No. 19-10916
three-year term of supervised release. See United States v. Harrison, 777 F.3d
227, 233 (5th Cir. 2015). We granted Harrison a certificate of appealability
to appeal the questions (1) whether the district court correctly determined
that his claim could be denied because the evidence did not show that his trial
counsel and codefendant established an attorney-client relationship as a
matter of state law, and (2) whether the district court correctly concluded,
alternatively, that despite the existence of an actual conflict of interest
stemming from multiple representation, Harrison failed to demonstrate that
the actual conflict adversely affected his counsel’s representation of him.
On appeal, Harrison contends that his trial counsel’s actions created
an implied attorney-client relationship with his codefendant and that he was
adversely affected by this actual conflict of interest during the plea process
because his codefendant implicated him in plea papers, which induced
Harrison to plead guilty. In an appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion, we
review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings
for clear error. United States v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 2008).
The district court’s underlying factual determinations, made after full
consideration of the record and an evidentiary hearing, “are entitled to
substantial deference, and should be reversed only if they are shown to be
clearly erroneous.” Perillo v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 775, 781 (5th Cir. 2000). A
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involving a conflict of interest is a
mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo. Beets v. Collins,
986 F.2d 1478, 1482 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Perillo, 205 F.3d at 781.
When determining the existence of an attorney-client relationship, we
generally look to state law. See Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92, 95 (5th Cir. 1994);
see also Walters v. Scott, 21 F.3d 683, 685 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). Under Texas
law, the attorney-client relationship can be expressly created by contract or
implied from the conduct of the parties. See Tanox, Inc., v. Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 105 S.W.3d 244, 254 (Tex. App. 2003); see also
2
Case: 19-10916 Document: 00516252034 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
No. 19-10916
Belliveau v. Barco, Inc., 987 F.3d 122, 133 (5th Cir. 2021). After a review of
the record, we conclude that the objective acts of both parties do not support
that Harrison’s trial counsel and codefendant intended to create an attorney-
client relationship under Texas law. Kiger v. Balestri, 376 S.W.3d 287, 291
(Tex. App. 2012).
Harrison argues, however, that an attorney-client relationship is not a
prerequisite for a Sixth Amendment claim based on multiple representation.
We need not decide this issue because Harrison’s claim fails either way. To
establish a multiple-representation claim under the Sixth Amendment,
Harrison must show that his trial counsel (1) “was acting under the influence
of an actual conflict that (2) adversely affected representation.” United
States v. Culverhouse, 507 F.3d 888, 892 (5th Cir. 2007); Cuyler v. Sullivan,
446 U.S. 335, 348–350 (1980). “A potential conflict of interest or one which
is merely speculative does not by itself make out a constitutional claim.”
Barrientos v. United States, 668 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1982).
First, Harrison has not shown that his trial counsel’s involvement
with his codefendant created an actual conflict of interest. The conflict
allegedly arose when counsel helped Harrison’s codefendant sign paperwork
for a global plea deal. But that deal contained favorable terms for Harrison.
And counsel wanted Harrison to take it well before his codefendant signed
on. If anything, counsel was acting in Harrison’s interest by helping his
codefendant accept the Government’s supposed all-or-nothing offer.
Second, Harrison cannot show that he was adversely affected by the
alleged conflict of interest. Harrison had the power to reject the global plea
deal, whether or not his codefendant did the same. Had Harrison done so,
his counsel testified that he was prepared to proceed to trial on Harrison’s
behalf. Harrison argues that he would have been prejudiced nonetheless
because his codefendant’s plea papers implicated him in the conspiracy. But
3
Case: 19-10916 Document: 00516252034 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/24/2022
No. 19-10916
a third codefendant (Harrison’s brother) also accepted the deal, and his
papers contained similar facts. Moreover, Harrison’s contention that the
government offered a global deal requiring every defendant to sign on would
mean that Harrison’s own rejection of the offer would have voided the entire
plea deal and all the related documents. Even if not, it is difficult to see how
these hearsay documents would have been admissible as evidence of
Harrison’s guilt at trial (of course, the codefendants could have testified
against him, but the government could not have introduced the out-of-court
plea documents of codefendants not testifying). In sum, any adverse effect
resulting from the alleged conflict of interest is speculative at best. Harrison
has thus failed to establish that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
See Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, 900 F.3d 663, 669 (5th Cir. 2018).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
4