Speller v. United States

Background

Jamil Speller pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robbery and possessing a firearm during and in relation to that crime. The court sentenced him to 93 months in prison: 33 months on the robbery-conspiracy count and a consecutive 60 months on the firearm count. The government dismissed a drug-trafficking conspiracy count under the plea agreement.

Speller later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence, seeking to vacate the firearm conviction. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis and the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Barrett. Speller and the government agreed that Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy did not qualify as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the firearm statute after those decisions.

The plea agreement waived Speller’s right to appeal or bring a collateral challenge to a sentence within or below the stipulated guidelines range. It also allowed the government to prosecute a dismissed count if Speller’s conviction under the agreement were later vacated. Speller did not file a direct appeal.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the procedural-default rule, which generally prevents a prisoner from using a later collateral motion to raise an argument that could have been raised on direct appeal. To overcome that rule, Speller had to show either a valid reason for not appealing and actual prejudice, or actual innocence. He did not claim actual innocence.

Speller argued that his trial lawyer’s failure to consult him about an appeal amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applied the two-part test requiring proof that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the performance caused prejudice. For a lawyer’s failure to consult about an appeal, the relevant question was whether a rational defendant would have wanted to appeal or whether the defendant had reasonably shown an interest in appealing.

The court concluded that Speller had not shown deficient performance. He had pleaded guilty, received a sentence below the range stated in the plea agreement, and expressly waived appeal and collateral-challenge rights for a sentence within or below that range. The court also considered that a successful challenge could have vacated his favorable plea bargain and exposed him to prosecution on the dismissed drug-trafficking conspiracy count, which carried a potential statutory minimum of 10 years. In the court’s view, a rational defendant in those circumstances would not have wanted to appeal.

Disposition

The court held that Speller failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore failed to show cause for his procedural default. It ruled that his challenge to the firearm conviction was procedurally barred and denied his Section 2255 motion in its entirety.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Speller could not make the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment denying the motion and close case number 16-CV-1884.