Anthony Wilson Kingsberry v. United States
202 F.3d 1030 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court may deny an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding an alleged plea offer under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without abusing its discretion if the motion, files, and records conclusively show no entitlement to relief, especially when the petitioner's supporting affidavits are self-contradictory regarding the offer's substance and do not cast genuine doubt on the veracity of the opposing party's denial.
Facts:
- Prior to trial, Anthony Kingsberry made a proffer of information to the government in an effort to initiate plea agreement negotiations.
- Anthony Kingsberry alleged that his trial counsel, Mr. Price, communicated a plea agreement offer from the government to him.
- Kingsberry submitted his own affidavit, stating he believed a plea offer would reduce his base offense level from 34 to 32 (equivalent to approximately fifteen years from twenty).
- Kingsberry's wife, Tara Kingsberry, submitted an affidavit stating Mr. Price communicated a plea offer reducing Kingsberry's sentence from approximately twenty-two years to approximately five if he cooperated, and about fifteen years if he pled guilty without cooperation.
- The government contended that upon investigating Kingsberry's proffer, it determined he was uncooperative and untruthful, and thus no formal plea agreement offer materialized.
- The government submitted an affidavit from Kingsberry's trial counsel, Mr. S. Dean Price, stating there was never any formal plea offer.
- Kingsberry proceeded to trial and was convicted of five drug and firearm offenses.
- Kingsberry was subsequently sentenced as a career offender because his instant offenses involved a controlled substance and he had three previous separate violent felonies.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Kingsberry was convicted by a jury of five drug and firearm offenses.
- He was sentenced as a career offender to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment, a concurrent two hundred and forty month sentence, and a mandatory consecutive sixty month sentence.
- Kingsberry filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
- The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- Kingsberry appealed the district court's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 when the existence of a formal plea offer is disputed by contradictory affidavits, but the petitioner’s own affidavits contain inconsistencies regarding the offer's terms and no facts genuinely question the opposing counsel's denial?
Opinions:
Majority - Floyd R. Gibson
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively showed that Anthony Kingsberry was not entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to establish prejudice. To demonstrate prejudice from counsel's inaccurate advice regarding a plea offer, a petitioner must first prove that a formal plea agreement was offered by the government. While contradictory affidavits typically create a factual dispute, an evidentiary hearing is only necessary when there is 'some reason to question the evidence’s credibility.' Here, the two parties necessarily privy to a plea offer (Kingsberry and his counsel, whose affidavit was submitted by the government) both denied the formal existence of an offer (with the government's omission of its own affidavit being assumed inadvertent). Furthermore, Kingsberry’s own supporting affidavits recited inconsistent facts regarding the substance of the alleged plea agreement offer, constituting 'self-serving, self-contradicting statement[s]' which are insufficient to render the motion, files, and records of the case inconclusive. No facts were presented to cast genuine doubt on the veracity of Mr. Price’s affidavit. Therefore, the district court correctly denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Dissenting - Richard S. Arnold
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing because the affidavits regarding the existence of a plea offer created a genuine issue of material fact that required live testimony and credibility assessment. Kingsberry's affidavit stating his lawyer informed him of a plea offer for a 15-year sentence directly contradicted his trial counsel's affidavit denying any formal plea offer, creating a 'classic issue of fact.' The majority's assertion that Mr. and Mrs. Kingsberry's affidavits were contradictory is incorrect; Mrs. Kingsberry clarified that the five-year sentence was contingent on cooperation, and a 15-year sentence would apply if he pled guilty without cooperation, making the affidavits consistent on the core 15-year offer. Even if there were differences in detail, it does not fit the 'single, self-serving, self-contradicting statement' rule as there were two separate statements from the petitioner's side. The absence of an affidavit from the Assistant U.S. Attorney who handled the case, a key witness to the offer's existence, makes the denial of a hearing particularly problematic. For a person serving a life term, such a crucial factual dispute warrants an evidentiary hearing.
Analysis:
This case establishes a high bar for petitioners seeking an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel claims under § 2255, particularly concerning alleged plea offers. The court's willingness to resolve factual disputes based on affidavits, especially when the petitioner's evidence contains inconsistencies or lacks strong independent corroboration, indicates that merely presenting conflicting accounts will not automatically mandate a hearing. The ruling emphasizes the importance of a petitioner's consistent narrative and the absence of any credible challenge to the opposing party's claims. Future cases will likely scrutinize the internal consistency of a petitioner's affidavits and the genuineness of factual disputes when determining the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.
