Leflore v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM OPINION: The Court having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the Report and Recommendation and the objections thereto, Leflore's 60 objections are hereby OVERRULED and the 59 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the 28 USC 2255 motion is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge Abdul K. Kallon on 5/6/2021. (bes, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
TONY JAMES LEFLORE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No.
) 2:17-cv-393-AKK-CSC
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by Tony James Leflore be denied. Doc. 59.
Leflore filed timely objections to the R&R. Doc. 60. Upon a de novo review of the
record, the court finds that the portions of the R&R to which Leflore objected are
free from factual and legal error and that the R&R is due to be adopted. For the most
part, Leflore’s objections merely restate arguments adequately and correctly
addressed in the R&R. However, brief discussion is warranted regarding certain
arguments raised in Leflore’s objections that are not mere reassertions of matters
already fully addressed in the R&R.
I.
Leflore’s § 2255 motion presented numerous claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel, all of which the magistrate judge’s R&R rejected as grounds for relief.
In his objections, Leflore argues that the magistrate judge erred in applying “the
usual presumption of effectiveness” to his counsel. Allegedly, his counsel was
ineffective, as evidenced by his reprimand by the Alabama State Bar for violating
his fiduciary duty to other clients, and allegedly suffered from mental health
problems in 2017 (well after counsel represented Leflore) stemming, Leflore claims,
from the Alabama State Bar’s disciplinary action against counsel. Doc. 60 at 3–5.
Notwithstanding events involving counsel that occurred after Leflore’s trial
and appeal, Leflore has demonstrated no professionally unreasonable performance
by counsel in his case. The record reflects that counsel acted zealously on Leflore’s
behalf during trial and on appeal. Nor has Leflore demonstrated any prejudice
resulting from his counsel’s allegedly deficient performance. Demonstrating neither
deficient performance nor resulting prejudice, Leflore is entitled to no relief based
on his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
II.
In his § 2255 motion, Leflore claimed that his counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by preventing him from testifying in his own defense at trial. Doc. 1 at 5;
Doc. 2 at 31–35. According to Leflore, he informed counsel of his desire to testify
several times in private discussions, but counsel would not allow him to do so. Doc.
2 at 32.
2
In rejecting Leflore’s claim, the magistrate judge noted that the trial record
showed that when the district court questioned Leflore regarding whether he wished
to testify, Leflore affirmed to the district court that (1) he understood his right to
testify or not to testify; (2) he had discussed whether to testify with his counsel; and
(3) that he had voluntarily decided not to testify. Doc. 59 at 11–13. Thus, regarding
Leflore’s claim that his counsel prevented him from testifying in his own defense,
the magistrate judge found that “Leflore’s current version of events is so discredited
by the record that no reasonable trier of fact could believe it.” Id. at 12.
In his objections, Leflore argues that the magistrate judge relied on the
credibility of his counsel’s statement, made in an affidavit addressing this issue, that
counsel had informed Leflore about his right to testify. Doc. 60 at 11. However, the
R&R reflects that the magistrate judge relied on the record evidence of Leflore’s
statements to the district court that his counsel had advised him of his right to testify
and that he did not wish to exercise that right. See Doc. 59 at 11–13.
Leflore also contends that the record does not establish the substance of his
discussions with his counsel about whether to testify, i.e., whether his counsel had
discussed the pros and cons of testifying. Doc. 60 at 13–14. However, the gist of
Leflore’s claim in his § 2255 motion was not that he waived his right to testify
without understanding the significance of that waiver. His claim was that he asked
his counsel several times that he be allowed to testify, but counsel ignored his
3
requests. The magistrate judge properly addresses this claim when finding that,
because Leflore stated to the district court that he had discussed his right to testify
with counsel and that he did not wish to testify, Leflore could not later be heard to
claim that counsel had prevented him from testifying. Doc. 59 at 13.
III.
Leflore objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that the claims he presented
in an amendment to his § 2255 motion should be dismissed as time-barred under 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f). Doc. 60 at 15. According to Leflore, his amended claims related
back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) to a claim in his timely § 2255 motion alleging
a deficiency in particularity in the warrant to search his residence. Id. at 15–17.
In his § 2255 motion, Leflore raised five specific claims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel and one claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. One of Leflore’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel alleged
that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge
to the search of his residence based on the search warrant’s alleged failure to describe
with particularity the evidence sought. Doc. 1 at 4; Doc. 2 at 3–31. That claim,
however, was based on a different set of facts and a different legal analysis than the
claims Leflore raised in his amendment to his § 2255 motion. Leflore’s amended
claims focused on alleged differences in the search warrant on file with the court and
the search warrant provided to the defense during discovery. Doc. 31 at 1–7.
4
Leflore’s original ineffective-assistance claim regarding an alleged deficiency in
particularity in the search warrant gave no indication of the claims he later raised in
his amendment, and the claim in his § 2255 motion and those in his amendment were
based on a different set of facts and involved a different legal analysis. See
Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the
magistrate judge correctly determined that Leflore’s amended claims did not relate
back to his original motion and that his new claims should be dismissed as timebarred under § 2255(f).
IV.
The Court having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials
in the court file, including the Report and Recommendation and the objections
thereto, Leflore’s objections, doc. 60, are hereby OVERRULED and the Report and
Recommendation, doc. 59, is ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that
the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
Final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE the 6th day of May, 2021.
_________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?