F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
MAY 29 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. 96-6273 v. (D.C. CR-93-239-R/CIV-96-1007) RONNIE DARNELL JOHNSON, (Western District of Oklahoma)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Pro se defendant-appellant Ronnie Darnell Johnson appeals the district court’s
denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Also before this court is Mr.
Johnson’s application for a certificate of appealability. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and dismiss the appeal.
In January 1994, Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty to two counts of traveling in interstate
commerce with intent to conduct illegal activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) on
charges arising from the seizure of 495 grams of cocaine and a handgun found in a car in
which he was a passenger. However, two days after his plea hearing and prior to
sentencing, Mr. Johnson filed a motion to withdraw his plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d).
The district court denied his motion. Mr. Johnson was then sentenced to 108 months
imprisonment--60 months on count one and 48 months on count two. On direct appeal,
Mr. Johnson challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea, arguing that his original plea was not voluntary. After holding that the trial record
1 On appeal of the denial of his § 2255 petition, Mr. Johnson raises for the first time the additional issues of whether his constitutional rights were violated by “racial remarks, threats, slurs and innuendos” and whether the “two point [sentencing] enhancement should be dismissed.” Aplt’s Br. at 5, 12. Because this court generally will not consider an issue on appeal which the district court has not had the opportunity to consider, we decline to address these two issues raised for the first time on this appeal. See Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 720-721 (10th Cir. 1993) (federal appellate courts generally do not consider issues not passed upon by the trial courts) (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976)).
2 demonstrated that Mr. Johnson understood the maximum ten year sentence he faced and
thus knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, this court affirmed.
Mr. Johnson then filed the present § 2255 petition seeking federal habeas corpus
relief. Mr. Johnson alleged that his counsel was ineffective because (1) he did not
adequately explain to Mr. Johnson the nature of the charges against him, the substance of
the plea agreement, or the consequences of pleading guilty; (2) he coerced Mr. Johnson to
enter a guilty plea; and (3) he failed to raise any issues or offer objections to the
presentence report. In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district court found no
merit in Mr. Johnson’s arguments and denied his petition. The district court subsequently
denied Mr. Johnson’s application for a certificate of appealability to pursue this appeal.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24, 1996), requires a § 2255 petitioner to obtain a
certificate of appealability prior to appealing a final order of the district court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). This court has previously held that “the certificate of appealability
provision applies to pending § 2255 cases in which the notice of appeal is filed after the
effective date of the AEDPA”--as is the case here where Mr. Johnson filed his notice of
appeal on August 5, 1996. United States v. Riddick, 104 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir.
1997). A habeas petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner
has made the “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2553(c)(2). We have held that the standard for granting a certificate of appealability
3 under the AEDPA is the same as the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). See Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997). Under the Barefoot standard, a certificate will issue
only where the petitioner has demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among
jurists of reason, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the questions presented
are deserving of further proceedings. See 463 U.S. at 893 n.4. We hold that Mr. Johnson
has failed to satisfy this burden.
In order to prove that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, a petitioner must
show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1994). Under
the first prong of Strickland, Mr. Johnson must show that “counsel’s representation fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. Under the second prong of
Strickland, to demonstrate prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, Mr. Johnson must
establish a reasonable probability that but for incompetent counsel he would have rejected
the plea offer and pled not guilty, see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985), and, in the
context of failing to object to a presentence report, Mr. Johnson must establish either that
counsel’s performance rendered the proceedings “‘fundamentally unfair or unreliable’” or
that the deficient performance resulted in a “significantly greater sentence,” United States
v. Kissick, 69 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506
U.S. 364, 369 (1993)).
4 During his direct appeal, Mr. Johnson argued that he should have been allowed to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
MAY 29 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. 96-6273 v. (D.C. CR-93-239-R/CIV-96-1007) RONNIE DARNELL JOHNSON, (Western District of Oklahoma)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Pro se defendant-appellant Ronnie Darnell Johnson appeals the district court’s
denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Also before this court is Mr.
Johnson’s application for a certificate of appealability. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and dismiss the appeal.
In January 1994, Mr. Johnson pleaded guilty to two counts of traveling in interstate
commerce with intent to conduct illegal activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3) on
charges arising from the seizure of 495 grams of cocaine and a handgun found in a car in
which he was a passenger. However, two days after his plea hearing and prior to
sentencing, Mr. Johnson filed a motion to withdraw his plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d).
The district court denied his motion. Mr. Johnson was then sentenced to 108 months
imprisonment--60 months on count one and 48 months on count two. On direct appeal,
Mr. Johnson challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea, arguing that his original plea was not voluntary. After holding that the trial record
1 On appeal of the denial of his § 2255 petition, Mr. Johnson raises for the first time the additional issues of whether his constitutional rights were violated by “racial remarks, threats, slurs and innuendos” and whether the “two point [sentencing] enhancement should be dismissed.” Aplt’s Br. at 5, 12. Because this court generally will not consider an issue on appeal which the district court has not had the opportunity to consider, we decline to address these two issues raised for the first time on this appeal. See Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 720-721 (10th Cir. 1993) (federal appellate courts generally do not consider issues not passed upon by the trial courts) (citing Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976)).
2 demonstrated that Mr. Johnson understood the maximum ten year sentence he faced and
thus knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, this court affirmed.
Mr. Johnson then filed the present § 2255 petition seeking federal habeas corpus
relief. Mr. Johnson alleged that his counsel was ineffective because (1) he did not
adequately explain to Mr. Johnson the nature of the charges against him, the substance of
the plea agreement, or the consequences of pleading guilty; (2) he coerced Mr. Johnson to
enter a guilty plea; and (3) he failed to raise any issues or offer objections to the
presentence report. In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district court found no
merit in Mr. Johnson’s arguments and denied his petition. The district court subsequently
denied Mr. Johnson’s application for a certificate of appealability to pursue this appeal.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24, 1996), requires a § 2255 petitioner to obtain a
certificate of appealability prior to appealing a final order of the district court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B). This court has previously held that “the certificate of appealability
provision applies to pending § 2255 cases in which the notice of appeal is filed after the
effective date of the AEDPA”--as is the case here where Mr. Johnson filed his notice of
appeal on August 5, 1996. United States v. Riddick, 104 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir.
1997). A habeas petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner
has made the “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2553(c)(2). We have held that the standard for granting a certificate of appealability
3 under the AEDPA is the same as the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Barefoot v.
Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). See Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1997). Under the Barefoot standard, a certificate will issue
only where the petitioner has demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among
jurists of reason, a court could resolve the issues differently, or the questions presented
are deserving of further proceedings. See 463 U.S. at 893 n.4. We hold that Mr. Johnson
has failed to satisfy this burden.
In order to prove that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, a petitioner must
show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance
prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1994). Under
the first prong of Strickland, Mr. Johnson must show that “counsel’s representation fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. Under the second prong of
Strickland, to demonstrate prejudice in the context of a plea agreement, Mr. Johnson must
establish a reasonable probability that but for incompetent counsel he would have rejected
the plea offer and pled not guilty, see Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985), and, in the
context of failing to object to a presentence report, Mr. Johnson must establish either that
counsel’s performance rendered the proceedings “‘fundamentally unfair or unreliable’” or
that the deficient performance resulted in a “significantly greater sentence,” United States
v. Kissick, 69 F.3d 1048, 1055-56 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506
U.S. 364, 369 (1993)).
4 During his direct appeal, Mr. Johnson argued that he should have been allowed to
withdraw his guilty plea because it had not been entered voluntarily due to the district
court’s failure to accurately advise him of the maximum penalty he could receive under
the agreement. See United States v. Johnson, No. 94-6123, 1994 WL 699171, at *5 (10th
Cir. Dec. 14, 1994). This court held that the government correctly informed Mr. Johnson
during the plea hearing that he faced a maximum of five years imprisonment on each of
the two counts and that Mr. Johnson informed the district court that he understood the
maximum penalties under the plea agreement--an understanding which Mr. Johnson later
confirmed at the hearing to withdraw his plea. See id. Consequently, even assuming that
Mr. Johnson’s counsel’s performance fell below professional standards, Mr. Johnson has
failed to establish how his counsel’s alleged failure to inform of the nature and
consequence of the charges or plea agreement or his counsel’s alleged coercion in
entering his plea was so prejudicial that but for his counsel’s actions, he would have
rejected the plea offer and pled not guilty. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 59.
With regard to Mr. Johnson’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon
his counsel’s alleged failure to raise any objection to the presentence report, the record in
this case clearly demonstrates that Mr. Johnson’s counsel made several objections to the
presentence report including a written objection to the absence of a two-level reduction of
the offense level for acceptance of responsibility, see Rec. vol. I, doc. 61 (Objection to
Pre-Sentence Investigation Report dated Mar. 25, 1994), and oral objections to the
5 quantity of drugs and Mr. Johnson’s role in the offense, see Rec. vol. IV, at 3-8
(Transcript of Sentencing dated Mar. 28, 1994). On the basis of this evidence, there is no
support for Mr. Johnson’s allegation that his counsel did not make any objection to the
presentence report. Furthermore, Mr. Johnson does not identify any specific objections
that should have been raised in order to establish either that his counsel’s performance
was deficient or that, if counsel’s performance was deficient, such failure rendered the
proceedings “‘fundamentally unfair or unreliable’” or that the deficient performance
resulted in a “significantly greater sentence.” Kissick, 69 F.3d at 1055-56 (quoting
Lockhart, 506 U.S. at 569))
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Mr. Johnson has failed to make the
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2553(c)(2), and,
accordingly, we deny him a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The
mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge