Leach v. USA

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 8/1/22. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
JEFF LEACH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Nos. 2:19-CV-077
2:16-CR-083

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Jeff Leach (“Petitioner”) filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging six grounds of ineffective assistance by his trial
attorney. [Doc. 1].1 His first five claims for relief were denied and dismissed by this Court.
[Doc. 13]. The undersigned referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia
Richardson Wyrick for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s sixth claim – whether his
former counsel failed to file a requested appeal. [Id.].
Magistrate Judge Wyrick conducted an evidentiary hearing on February 7, 2022,
receiving testimony from Petitioner and Petitioner’s trial counsel, Sandra B. Jelovsek
(“Attorney Jelovsek”). On May 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Wyrick issued her Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). [Doc. 18] Therein, the magistrate judge determined that
Petitioner failed to meet his burden to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. [Id. at

1

1

  Document numbers not otherwise specified refer to the civil docket. 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 212

10]. Further, Petitioner’s testimony was found to be less credible than Attorney Jelovsek’s
testimony based on Attorney Jelovsek’s detailed testimony of conversations with
Petitioner. [Id. at 8-9]. The magistrate judge also found that Petitioner had not shown that
he directly requested an appeal or otherwise indicated his desire to appeal. [Id. at 9]. In
light of these findings, Magistrate Judge Wyrick recommended that the Court deny
Petitioner’s § 2255 motion as to the sixth ground for relief.
Petitioner objected to the R&R, and the time for the United States to respond has
passed. [Doc. 22]; See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a). The matter is now ripe for determination. A
transcript of Magistrate Judge Wyrick’s evidentiary hearing has been filed [Doc. 21] and
has been carefully reviewed by the Court. For the reasons that follow, the Court will adopt
the R&R in full. Petitioner’s sixth ground for relief will be DENIED and his § 2255 motion
to vacate [Doc. 1] will be DISMISSED.
I.

BACKGROUND
The superseding indictment in this case charged Petitioner with six counts related

to conspiracy and distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. [Criminal “Crim”
Doc. 89]. Petitioner, represented by Attorney Jelovsek, entered into a plea agreement,
pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine on January 24, 2018. [Crim. Doc. 190]. The Court sentenced Petitioner
to 168 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years of supervised release. [Crim. Doc. 262].
Petitioner did not file an appeal.

2 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 213

On May 8, 2019, Petitioner filed this § 2255 motion, raising six grounds for relief.2
[Doc. 1]. This memorandum, like Magistrate Judge Wyrick’s R&R, addresses only the
sixth ground.
II.

AUTHORITY
District courts are both statutorily and constitutionally required to conduct a de novo

review of a magistrate judge’s R&R. See United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th
Cir. 1985). However, it is necessary only to review “those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
District courts need not provide de novo review where objections to a report and
recommendation are frivolous, conclusive, or general. See Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636,
637 (6th Cir. 1986).
A petitioner alleging ineffective assistance must satisfy the two-part test set forth in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). First, the petitioner must establish, by
identifying specific acts or omissions, that counsel’s performance was deficient and that
counsel did not provide “reasonably effective assistance,” id., as measured by “prevailing
professional norms.” Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 380 (2005). Courts must presume
that counsel’s assistance was effective, and petitioners bear the burden of showing
otherwise. See Mason v. Mitchell, 320 F.3d 604, 616–17 (6th Cir. 2003).
Second, a petitioner must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for
[counsel’s acts or omissions], the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

2

Petitioner filed the motion pro se. He was, however, represented by appointed counsel at the
February 7, 2022, evidentiary hearing, and his objection to the R&R is filed by counsel.
3 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 214

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. “An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable,
does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no
effect on the judgment.” Id. at 691.
In the context of an appeal, there is a long-established rule “that a lawyer who
disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a
manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477
(2000). Here, Petitioner’s allegations that he directed Attorney Jelovsek to file an appeal
are not credible. However, in cases where a petitioner neither told his attorney to file an
appeal nor told her not to file an appeal, courts must evaluate the attorney's performance
by asking whether the attorney “consulted” with the defendant about the benefits and
drawbacks of filing an appeal. Id. at 478. Consultation occurs when the attorney “advis[es]
the defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an appeal, and mak[es] a
reasonable effort to discover the defendant's wishes.” Id. If consultation has occurred, then
“[c]ounsel performs in a professionally unreasonable manner only by failing to follow the
defendant's express instructions with respect to an appeal.” Id. (emphasis added). If
counsel failed to consult with her client, then the court must address whether the failure to
consult constitutes deficient performance. See id.
III.

Analysis
As noted above, the sixth claim in Petitioner’s § 2255 motion alleges that trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal after Petitioner requested her to do so.
[Doc. 1]. As also noted above, Magistrate Judge Wyrick found that Petitioner did not
satisfy his burden to show that he specifically requested Attorney Jelovsek to file an appeal
4 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 215

and found that a reasonable person in Petitioner’s shoes would not have requested an
appeal. [Doc. 18, p. 10]. The magistrate judge concluded, “[g]iven the testimony of
Petitioner and Ms. Jelovsek and the logical conclusions to be gleaned therefrom, the Court
simply cannot find that Petitioner directly requested that Ms. Jelovsek appeal his case nor
that he otherwise demonstrated to her a desire to appeal.” [Id. at 9].
Petitioner, through counsel, filed an objection to the R&R, objecting to Magistrate
Judge Wyrick’s credibility determinations and findings that Petitioner did not request an
appeal and that a person in Petitioner’s shoes would not have desired to appeal. [Doc. 22].
At the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner’s testimony regarding his conversation with
Attorney Jelovsek about filing an appeal allegedly occurred prior to his sentencing hearing.
[Doc. 22, p. 15]. This assertion differs from his pleadings. In his § 2255 motion, Petitioner
stated, “[a]fter the sentencing hearing, Petitioner requested counsel to file an appeal.” [Doc.
2, p 19]. However, at the hearing, Petitioner stated that he did not talk to Attorney Jelovsek
after the sentencing hearing, nor did he ask Attorney Jelovsek to appeal after he was
sentenced. [Doc. 21, at 19]. Petitioner also admitted that Attorney Jelovsek gave documents
to his mom after the sentencing but denied that there was a letter about his right to appeal
from his attorney. [Id. at 16-18]. However, there was a letter to Petitioner from Attorney
Jelovsek regarding the end of her representation and next steps for Petitioner which was
submitted as an exhibit to the hearing. [Id., Exhibit 8].
Attorney Jelovsek also testified at the hearing regarding whether Petitioner directed
her to file an appeal. She testified that the Petitioner did not ask her to file an appeal, nor
did he seem dissatisfied with the agreement for the sentence recommendation from the
5 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 216

Government. [Id., at 36-37]. She also stated that she would have filed an appeal if she had
been directed to do so by Petitioner. [Id., at 38-39]. Magistrate Wyrick found Attorney
Jelovsek’s testimony to be the more credible testimony, and this Court also finds the same.
As stated above, counsel’s performance might be deficient if, after consultation,
counsel neglects to file an appeal after specific instructions from a defendant to do so. Here,
the record supports Magistrate Judge Wyrick’s conclusion that Petitioner did not
specifically request that Attorney Jelovsek file an appeal on his behalf following his
sentencing and made no further efforts to inquire about appealing or filing an appeal pro
se. The record further reflects that Attorney Jelovsek consulted with Petitioner regarding
an appeal and did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. As Petitioner has not met
his burden to establish deficient performance of counsel, the Court need not address the
prejudice prong of the Strickland standard. Strickland, 466 U.S. 668.
IV.

CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the R&R [Doc. 18], the hearing transcript [Doc. 21], and

the parties’ filings, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 18] in its entirety.
Petitioner’s objection [Doc. 22] to the R&R is OVERRRULED. Accordingly, ground six
of Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion [Doc. 1; Crim Doc. 289] is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the civil file.

6 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 217

IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge

7 

Case 2:19-cv-00077-RLJ-CRW Document 23 Filed 08/01/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 218