United States v. Terrence Mitchell

444 F. App'x 78
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 7, 2011
Docket10-51140
StatusUnpublished

This text of 444 F. App'x 78 (United States v. Terrence Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Terrence Mitchell, 444 F. App'x 78 (5th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Terrence Doyle Mitchell, federal prisoner #04106-180, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for specific performance or reinstatement of his direct appeal. In his motion, Mitchell contended that his plea agreement was breached and that counsel was ineffective for failing to prosecute a direct appeal. Mitchell’s district court motion was an attempt to collaterally attack his sentence by raising errors that occurred at sentencing or during the period for pursuing a direct appeal. As such, the motion should have been construed by the district court as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1998). Such a recharac-terization of Mitchell’s motion has important consequences of which Mitchell should be apprised. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). Also, because Mitchell’s motion was in the nature of a 2255 motion, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal absent ruling on a certificate of appealability in the district court. See United States v. Youngblood, 116 F.3d 1113, 1114-15 (5th Cir.1997).

The judgment of the district court is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Youngblood
116 F.3d 1113 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Rich
141 F.3d 550 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Tolliver v. Dobre
211 F.3d 876 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Castro v. United States
540 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
444 F. App'x 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-terrence-mitchell-ca5-2011.