Michael J. Guinan v. United States of America
6 F.3d 468 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based solely on the trial record is waived if not raised on direct appeal, unless the defendant provides a valid reason for the postponement, such as the need to develop new facts or the reasonable appearance that new evidence might be necessary.
Facts:
- Michael Guinan was convicted for filing false tax returns.
- Following his conviction and appeal, a separate opinion was issued by the U.S. Tax Court.
- Guinan believed this Tax Court opinion demonstrated that he had a valid defense to the original criminal charges which his trial counsel failed to raise.
- Guinan also alleged that his trial counsel had been generally ineffective due to being inexperienced, unprepared, and failing to call crucial witnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Guinan was convicted in U.S. District Court for filing false tax returns.
- Guinan's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Guinan later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the U.S. District Court, seeking to set aside his convictions.
- The district court denied Guinan's § 2255 motion.
- Guinan (Appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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:
Is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel waived if it is based entirely on the trial record but is not raised on direct appeal, and is instead raised for the first time in a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge.
No, the claim is not necessarily waived. While an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based solely on the trial record should generally be raised on direct appeal, it is not forfeited if the defendant has a valid reason for postponing it to a collateral proceeding. The court holds that a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence cannot be brought under § 2255 to circumvent Rule 33's two-year time limit, as § 2255 corrects constitutional and jurisdictional errors, not factual ones. Regarding the IAC claim, the court reaffirms and refines the rule from United States v. Taglia, balancing finality with fairness. A defendant may postpone an IAC claim if: 1) trial and appellate counsel were the same; 2) the claim requires evidence outside the trial record; or 3) it reasonably appeared at the time of appeal that new evidence would be necessary. Here, Guinan's record-based IAC claims were weak on their own, but became plausible when combined with the new evidence from the post-appeal Tax Court opinion. Therefore, he was justified in waiting to present all his IAC allegations together in a § 2255 motion once he had a stronger basis for his claim. However, upon reviewing the merits, the court finds the IAC claim fails because the defense was, in fact, raised at trial and other allegations are unsupported.
Concurring - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
Yes, in effect, a defendant should be able to raise an ineffective assistance claim in a § 2255 motion without it being considered waived. While I agree with the outcome, the majority's waiver rule is overly complex and impractical. Raising an IAC claim on direct appeal is a 'futile step' because the appellate court cannot consider new evidence, which is almost always necessary to properly evaluate counsel's performance and potential prejudice. The 'right tribunal at the right time' for such claims is the district court in a § 2255 proceeding, where an evidentiary hearing can be held. The majority's rule, with its subjective exception about what 'reasonably appeared' necessary to counsel, will create needless procedural litigation. A simpler, more efficient rule would be to permit all IAC claims to be raised for the first time under § 2255, a position supported by the Solicitor General.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Seventh Circuit's procedural default rule for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, creating a rebuttable presumption of waiver for record-based claims not raised on direct appeal. It highlights the significant tension between the judicial interests in finality and the practical reality that IAC claims often require factual development outside the trial record. The court's refined rule attempts to balance these interests by providing exceptions, but as Judge Easterbrook's concurrence argues, this complex framework may generate more procedural disputes. The case is a key illustration of the procedural hurdles defendants face in post-conviction litigation and the circuit split on how to best handle IAC claims.
