United States v. Justin Bicket , 581 F. App'x 608 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 13-3797
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Justin R. Bicket
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
    ____________
    Submitted: November 4, 2014
    Filed: November 6, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Justin Bicket, who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm
    after a jury trial, see United States v. Bicket, 497 Fed. Appx. 679 (8th Cir. 2013) (per
    curiam), appeals the district court’s1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
    without an evidentiary hearing. In his motion, Bicket claimed that his trial counsel
    provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the indictment on
    speedy-trial grounds, and by failing to communicate a government plea offer.
    Following de novo review, we conclude the denial of relief was proper. The
    record establishes that Bicket’s counsel sought continuances to prepare for trial, that
    Bicket waived his speedy-trial rights, and that counsel’s decision not to seek
    dismissal of the indictment did not amount to deficient performance. See Thomas v.
    United States, 
    737 F.3d 1202
    , 1206, 1209 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review;
    decision whether to move to dismiss for speedy trial violation is tactical decision of
    trial strategy), cert. denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 2323
    (2014). Further, Bicket’s attestations in
    support of his second ineffective-assistance claim--that his counsel “never” informed
    him of a plea offer--were contradicted by the record, including by his testimony at his
    sentencing hearing that he was aware of a specific eve-of-trial plea offer. The denial
    of relief without an evidentiary hearing was thus not an abuse of discretion. See
    Winters v. United States, 
    716 F.3d 1098
    , 1103 (8th Cir.) (§ 2255 motion may be
    dismissed without hearing if movant’s allegations, accepted as true, would not entitle
    him to relief; or if allegations cannot be accepted as true because they are
    contradicted by record, are inherently incredible, or are conclusions rather than
    statements of fact), cert. denied, 
    134 S. Ct. 447
    (2013).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of
    Nebraska.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-3797

Citation Numbers: 581 F. App'x 608

Judges: Wollman, Bye, Smith

Filed Date: 11/6/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024