UNITED STATES v. NELSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-06-28No. No. 20-4494

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed Nelson's convictions, holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are not conclusively evident from the trial record must be raised in a § 2255 motion and are not proper subjects for remand during direct appeal.

Davon Nelson appealed his guilty-plea convictions for fentanyl offenses, claiming his trial attorney failed to properly explain the terms of his plea agreement. Nelson acknowledged that the trial record did not conclusively demonstrate ineffective assistance but asked the appellate court to remand the case for a hearing to develop evidence of his claim. The court rejected this request, adhering to its established rule that ineffective assistance claims lacking clear support in the record must be pursued through post-conviction motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than on direct appeal. Although Nelson cited decisions from the First and D.C. Circuits permitting remand for so-called "colorable" ineffective assistance claims, the Fourth Circuit declined to adopt that approach, noting that most other circuits follow the same practice the court uses.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether ineffective assistance claims can be remanded for evidentiary hearing on direct appeal
Proper procedural vehicle for raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Whether plea agreement explanation constitutes ineffective assistance

Procedural posture

Nelson appealed his guilty-plea convictions, seeking remand for an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Davon Nelson appeals from his convictions for fentanyl conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, which were entered pursuant to his guilty plea. On appeal, he asserts that he received ineffective assistance when his attorney failed to adequately explain the terms of his written plea agreement. Nelson contends that he has raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance, and he seeks a remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. Finding Nelsons claim should instead be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, we affirm.

It is well established that, “[u]nless an attorneys ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Absent clear-cut evidence, we have determined that any claims of ineffective assistance “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” Id. at 508. Here, Nelson concedes that the record does not conclusively support his assertions.

Nonetheless, Nelson urges this court to adopt the holdings of the First and D.C. Circuits that, on direct appeal, “colorable” claims of ineffective assistance may be remanded to the trial courts for an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Marquez-Perez, 835 F.3d 153, 165 & n.6 (1st Cir. 2016); United States v. Knight, 824 F.3d 1105, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2016). However, the majority of other circuits have rejected this approach and found that “post-conviction proceedings are generally the proper avenue for ineffective assistance claims.” United States v. Gooding, 594 F. Appx 123, 131 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing cases). We decline to alter our long-standing practice of requiring that, absent “conclusive evidence,” ineffective assistance claims be brought in a § 2255 motion in the first instance. See United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.