Edward Gladney v. USA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-20063 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: LHS, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 08/28/2017 [15-20063]

Case: 15-20063

Document: 00514059555

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 15-20063
Summary Calendar

FILED
July 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
EDWARD JORODGE GLADNEY,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CV-583
USDC No. 4:10-CR-735-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Edward Jorodge Gladney, federal prisoner # 80179-279, appeals the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his guilty plea to producing
and advertising child pornography. We granted a certificate of appealability
“on whether counsel failed to adequately inform Gladney about Dr. [Diane]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 15-20063

Document: 00514059555

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

No. 15-20063
Bailey’s psychological evaluation so that Gladney could consider whether to
plead not guilty by reason of insanity.”
On remand, the district court considered an affidavit from Gladney’s plea
counsel stating that she reviewed the contents of Dr. Bailey’s report with
Gladney prior to his rearraignment and that she “was confident that he had
all of the information to make a decision whether to plead guilty or not.”
Counsel also testified that Gladney never told her “that he did not understand
that the nature of his conduct was criminal.” Based on Counsel’s affidavit and
the rest of the record, the district court denied relief without holding an
evidentiary hearing. Gladney now argues that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and instead basing its
ruling on contradictory competing affidavits.
A § 2255 motion can be denied without an evidentiary hearing if “the
motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner
is entitled to no relief.” § 2255(b). We review the decision not to hold an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d
258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006). Generally, contested factual issues in a § 2255 case
may not be decided on the basis of affidavits alone unless the affidavits are
supported by other evidence in the record. United States v. Hughes, 635 F.2d
449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981).
Our review of the record shows that the district court’s decision was not
based solely on counsel’s affidavit but was adequately supported by evidence
in the record that was consistent with counsel’s affidavit and that contradicted
Gladney’s assertions that he was not properly informed of the substance of
Dr. Bailey’s report. See Hughes, 635 F.2d at 451. Thus, denial of relief was
proper even without a hearing. See id.

2

Case: 15-20063

Document: 00514059555

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

No. 15-20063
Moreover, Gladney has failed to argue or show any objective likelihood
that he would have succeeded had he gone to trial and asserted an insanity
defense. See United States v. Batamula, 823 F.3d 237, 240 (5th Cir.) (en banc),
cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 236 (2016). He thus fails to establish “a reasonable
probability that . . . he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).
Gladney fails to demonstrate that his counsel performed deficiently or
that his defense was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
therefore AFFIRMED.

3

The district court’s judgment is