Stevenson v. United States

Background

Eric Stevenson, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. A jury had convicted him on four federal bribery-related counts, and the court had sentenced him to an aggregate 36 months in prison. The sentence also included forfeiture of a substitute asset held in his pension account.

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected Stevenson’s challenges to the sentencing-guidelines calculation, forfeiture procedure, trial-adjournment ruling, evidentiary ruling, and sufficiency of the evidence. It did not decide his ineffective-assistance claim, indicating that a § 2255 motion was the preferred method for raising that claim.

Claims and analysis

Stevenson’s § 2255 motion argued that the trial evidence was insufficient and that his defense lawyer was ineffective for failing to pursue several arguments. After the Government responded, Stevenson asked the court to stop considering three ineffective-assistance grounds: challenges involving racial-bias evidence, acquittal evidence, and the denial of a trial adjournment. The court granted that request.

The court held that the mandate rule barred Stevenson from relitigating his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim because the Court of Appeals had already decided that issue. The court also held that the rule barred his ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel’s failure to object to the forfeiture order and to the jury instruction defining “official act.” The court explained that those claims were alternative versions of issues already decided on direct appeal.

The court considered the remaining ineffective-assistance claim on the merits: Stevenson argued that his lawyer should have presented an entrapment defense. Such a defense would require showing both that the Government induced the crime and that Stevenson was not already inclined to commit it. The court focused on evidence that Stevenson warned a cooperating witness about recording devices, asked whether the businessmen were preparing a payment for him, and expressed that he wanted a payment arrangement in place. It concluded that the record showed strong evidence of predisposition and that an entrapment defense was unlikely to succeed.

Applying the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found neither deficient performance nor prejudice. It determined that counsel’s decision not to pursue entrapment was a reasonable strategic choice and that Stevenson had not shown a reasonable probability of a different result.

Disposition

The court denied Stevenson’s § 2255 petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Stevenson had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the Clerk to close case number 18-cv-1722.