Alton Jones v. United States

Case: 13-10361 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10361
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:12-cv-00914-JSM-TGW, 8:09-cr-00440-JSM-TGW-3
ALTON JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 4, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-10361 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Alton Jones, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence.
Jones sought to raise two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his
trial counsel’s failure to advise him of his ability to enter an open guilty plea and
failure to pursue a substantial-assistance departure in a timely manner.
On appeal, Jones argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance
by failing to advise him of Jones’s ability to enter open guilty pleas. He states that
he was unaware of his ability to enter his pleas without a plea agreement or to enter
an agreement without an appeal waiver. He contends that he was prejudiced by his
counsel’s assistance: his pleas were, in effect, involuntary and he was precluded
from pursuing a direct appeal or seeking habeas relief. He also contends that the
district court’s sentence -- although within the guidelines -- is unreasonable.
The government asserts that the record is insufficient to evaluate the
question on appeal and requests that we remand the case for further proceedings
and factual development. It contends that the district court’s rationales (mainly
that Jones had voluntarily pleaded guilty) for denying Jones’s motion were flawed
because the rationales ignored the substance of Jones’s claims and were not
supported by the record. The government notes that the record is currently
2
Case: 13-10361 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 3 of 3
insufficient to evaluate the performance of Jones’s trial counsel, partially due to the
government’s choosing to submit no affidavit from said counsel.
“In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s legal
conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.” Devine v. United States,
520 F.3d 1286, 1287 (11th Cir. 2008). “A claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” Id.We agree with the government that the district court erroneously concluded
that Jones was precluded from raising his claims based on his guilty pleas, where
Jones specifically challenged the voluntariness of the pleas. We also agree that the
record is insufficiently developed to evaluate Jones’s trial counsel’s performance.
Therefore, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand the case for
further proceedings and factual development.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3