Opinion
4:16-cr-00003-05
08-15-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. ERIC DESHON WILLIAMS DEFENDANT
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a letter from defendant Eric Deshon Williams. See Court's Exhibit A. Mr. Williams states that his letter is “a grievance complaint against [his] court appointed attorney Geoffrey Davis Kearney due to the facts [sic] he has been ineffective in my appeal.” (Id.). He asks the Court to “take a look into these complaints and address them accordingly.” (Id.).
The Court recognizes that an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel generally is sufficient to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., United States v. Sellner, 773 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2014) (examining a § 2255 claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel). A criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, as well as at trial. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 (1985); Bear Stops v. United States, 339 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 2003).
Further, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel normally are raised for the first time in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not in direct appeals. See, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 390 Fed.Appx. 614, 617 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Cruz, 186 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 1999)) (“We have stated time and again that ineffective assistance claims are best presented in a motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”); United States v. Mitchell, 136 F.3d 1192, 1193 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims more properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion); United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995) (stating ineffective assistance of counsel claims “more appropriately raised in collateral proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255”); United States v. Scott, 26 F.3d 1458, 1467 (8th Cir. 1994) (declining to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised for first time on direct appeal where claim not raised in a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255).
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Williams must demonstrate: (1) that his attorney's performance was deficient and outside the range of reasonable professional assistance, and (2) that he was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 689, 694 (1984); United States v. Taylor, 258 F.3d 815, 818 (8thCir. 2001). “Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
To the extent Mr. Williams in his letter seeks to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court directs Mr. Williams to show cause within 30 days of the entry of this Order as to why his allegations are sufficient to support a claim under § 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel or sufficient to support any other claim properly asserted under § 2255.
To the extent Mr. Williams in his letter seeks different relief and does not intend to assert a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court directs Mr. Williams to provide such information in writing to the Court.
It is ORDERED.