Williams v. United States Of America

Filing 12

ORDER stating that Williams' is entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent him at a evidentiary hearing. The Clerk is therefore directed to prepare the necessary paperwork for appointment of counsel and to schedule a hearing on this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 3/7/2012. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
CHARLES EVERETT WILLIAMS,
Movant,
v.

Case No.

CV611-108
CR610-021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER
Charles Everett Williams moves to vacate, set aside, or correct his
federal prison sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his counsel
was ineffective for disregarding his direct instruction to file an appeal on
his behalf. (Doc. 4 at 15.) The government has provided an affidavit by
Williams’ attorney, Peter D. Johnson, contradicting Williams’ assertions.
(Doc. 8-1.) It concedes, however, that a hearing is required on his claim.
(Doc. 8 at 1, 8.)
Under Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings,
Williams is entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(g) to represent him at the evidentiary hearing. The Clerk is

therefore DIRECTED to prepare the necessary paperwork for
appointment of counsel and to schedule a hearing on this matter. The
parties are advised, however, that the sole issue at the hearing will be
Williams’ claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct
appeal and the related matter of whether Johnson properly consulted with
him in accordance with Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477, 481
(2000). 1 The Court will not entertain any argument or testimony
pertaining to any of movant’s other allegations.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2012.
f

I

d'1JN]TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOuTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Based upon Williams’ affidavit, the Court suspects that his request for
Johnson to file an appeal came far too late to set forth a valid claim that his attorney
failed to file an appeal based upon his direct instructions; according to Williams, he
could not reach his attorney to request an appeal until months after sentencing. (Doc.
10 at 2.) Nevertheless, the affidavit suggests that Johnson failed to consult with
Williams about his appellate rights.
1

2