United States v. Irvine King , 679 F. App'x 297 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6382
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRVINE JOHNSTON KING, a/k/a Irvine Johnson King; AISHA
RASHIDATU KING,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00180-CMH-1; 1:12-cr-00180-CMH-2;
1:15-cv-00811-CMH; 1:15-cv-00812-CMH)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 15, 2017
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated in part and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Patrick Elwood, Lindsey Robinson Vaala, VINSON & ELKINS,
LLP, Washington, D.C., Conor Paul McEvily, VINSON & ELKINS, LLP,
Houston, Texas, for Appellants. Kimberly G. Ang, Christopher
John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rachel
Gabrielle Hertz, Lauren Elyse Marziani, Special Assistant United
States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Irvine Johnston King and Aisha Rashidatu King appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on their 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motions. We previously granted a partial certificate of
appealability and ordered further briefing on a single issue:
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying,
absent an evidentiary hearing, the Kings’ claim that their
counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea
negotiations. Having reviewed the record and the parties’
submissions, we vacate in part and remand for an evidentiary
hearing.
“We review de novo a district court’s legal conclusions in
denying a § 2255 motion.” United States v. Ragin, 820 F.3d 609,
617 (4th Cir. 2016). We review for abuse of discretion a
district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing in
a postconviction proceeding. See Gordon v. Braxton, 780 F.3d
196, 204 (4th Cir. 2015). “When the district court denies
§ 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing, the nature of the
court’s ruling is akin to a ruling on a motion for summary
judgment,” and the facts must be viewed “in the light most
favorable to the § 2255 movant.” United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 267 (4th Cir. 2007).
The district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a
§ 2255 motion “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of
2
the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see United States v. Thomas, 627
F.3d 534, 538 (4th Cir. 2010). The determination of whether to
hold an evidentiary hearing ordinarily is left to the sound
discretion of the district court. Raines v. United States, 423
F.2d 526, 530 (4th Cir. 1970). However, “if the parties produce
evidence disputing material facts with respect to non-frivolous
habeas allegations, a court must hold an evidentiary hearing to
resolve those disputes.” United States v. White, 366 F.3d 291,
297 (4th Cir. 2004); see United States v. Witherspoon, 231 F.3d
923, 926-27 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Magini, 973 F.2d
261, 264 (4th Cir. 1992).
Here, the Kings’ affidavits and their attorneys’
declarations materially conflict with regard to numerous
matters, including what advice counsel provided regarding the
strength of the Government’s case, the extent to which the Kings
were aware of the sentence they likely would face if they went
to trial, the extent to which counsel examined the evidence and
reviewed that evidence with the Kings, and when and how counsel
communicated plea offers to the Kings. The supporting documents
provided by the Government do not fully resolve these material
disputes.
Although “there is no prohibition against a court making
credibility determinations based on competing affidavits in
3
certain circumstances,” Strong v. Johnson, 495 F.3d 134, 139
(4th Cir. 2007), our review of the record leads us to reject the
notion that an evidentiary hearing would “add little or nothing
to the proceedings,” United States v. Barsanti, 943 F.2d 428,
440 (4th Cir. 1991). Importantly, while counsel’s statements
are more detailed and more fully supported by documentary
evidence, we cannot conclude that the Kings’ contrary affidavits
are so conclusory or so implausible as to warrant their outright
rejection, or to otherwise dispel the material factual disputes
at issue in their case. Because these factual disputes turn
upon credibility determinations and “relate primarily to
purported occurrences outside the courtroom and upon which the
record could, therefore, cast no real light,” we conclude this
action falls within the class of cases in which “an evidentiary
hearing is especially warranted.” See White, 366 F.3d at 302
(alteration, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).
We therefore conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in prematurely rejecting the Kings’ claim absent an
evidentiary hearing.
As a final matter, the Kings request that the case be
reassigned to a different district judge upon remand. We deny
this request, as we conclude that reassignment is not necessary
to preserve the appearance of justice and would entail a waste
of judicial resources disproportionate to any conceivable gains.
4
See United States v. North Carolina, 180 F.3d 574, 583 (4th Cir.
1999); United States v. Guglielmi, 929 F.2d 1001, 1007 (4th Cir.
1991).
Accordingly, we vacate in part the district court’s orders
dismissing the Kings’ § 2255 motions. We remand with
instructions to grant the Kings an evidentiary hearing on their
claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to sufficiently
investigate and render prompt and adequate advice during plea
negotiations. In so doing, we offer no view as to the merits of
the Kings’ claim, leaving that determination to the district
court in the first instance. 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.
VACATED IN PART
AND REMANDED
5